LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

gift  OF 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No .  i5ip  fT^O-      Class  No. 


N 


« 


V 

^ 


\ 


"ST 


1  t 


u 


\^A 


■ft 


V 


^ 


1 


^J 


> 


&&* 


the 


EARLIER  PROPHECIES 


OF 


ISAIAH. 


BY 


JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDER,  ,£&. 

PROFESSOR    IN    THE   THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY,    PRINCETON,    NEW   JERSEY. 


>*   OF 

CHIVES 


NEW-YORK  &  LONDON: 

WILEY  AND  PUTNAM. 

1846. 


t> 


■3  v 


t 

Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1846,  by 

Joseph  Addison  Alexander, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  District  of  New  Jersey. 


\ 


PREFACE. 


To  prevent  misapprehension  and  facilitate  the  use  of  the  fol- 
lowing work,  some  explanation  may  be  needed  with  respect  to  its 
design  and  execution.  The  specific  end  at  which  it  aims  is  that 
of  making  the  results  of  philological  and  critical  research  available 
for  purposes  of  practical  utility.  In  attempting  to  accomplish  this 
important  purpose,  it  was  soon  found  indispensable  to  fix  upon 
some  definite  portion  of  the  reading  public,  whose  capacities,  ac- 
quirements, and  wants  might  be  consulted  in  determining  the 
form  and  method  of  the  exposition.  Some  learned  and  ingenious 
works  in  this  department  have  been  rendered  to  a  great  extent 
practically  useless,  by  the  want  of  a  determinate  fitness  for  any 
considerable  class  of  readers,  being  at  once  too  pedantic  for  the 
ignorant  and  too  elementary  for  the  instructed.  In  the  present 
case  there  seemed  to  be  some  latitude  of  choice,  and  yet  but  one 
course  on  the  whole  advisable.  Works  exclusively  adapted  to  the 
use  of  profound  orientalists  and  biblical  scholars  are  almost  prohib- 
ited among  ourselves  at  present,  by  the  paucity  of  competent  wri- 
ters and  congenial  readers.  Works  designed  for  the  immediate 
use  of  the  unlearned  must  of  necessity  be  superficial  and  imper- 
fect, and  are  proved  by  experience  to  be  not  the  most  effective 
means  of  influencing  even  those  for  whom  they  are  expressly  writ- 
ten. The  obscurer  parts  of  Scripture,  or  at  least  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, can  be  most  effectually  brought  to  bear  upon  the  popular 
mind  by  employing  the  intermediate  agency  of  an  intelligent  and 
educated  ministry.  The  people  may  be  best  taught  in  such  cases 
through  their  teachers,  by  furnishing  a  solid  scientific  basis  for  their 
popular  instructions.  Under  the  influence  of  these  considerations 
an  attempt  has  here  been  made  to  concentrate  and  economize  the 


iv  PREFACE. 

labours  of  the  ministry  in  this  field,  by  affording  them  a  partial 
succedaneum  for  many  costly  books,  and  enabling  them  to  profit 
by  the  latest  philological  improvements  and  discoveries,  without 
the  inconveniences  and  even  dangers  which  attend  a  direct  resort 
to  the  original  authorities. 

What  has  now  been  said  will  explain  a  feature  of  the  plan, 
which  might  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  the  ultimate 
design  of  the  whole  work,  to  wit,  the  exclusion  of  the  practical 
element,  or  rather  of  its  formal  exhibition  in  the  shape  of  homilet- 
ical  and  doctrinal  reflections.  A  work  upon  Isaiah  so  constructed 
as  to  constitute  a  series  of  lectures  or  expository  sermons,  instead 
of  doing  for  the  clergy  what  they  need  and  what  they  wish,  would 
be  attempting  to  do  for  them  that  which  they  can  do  far  better  for 
themselves,  by  presenting  one  of  the  many  forms  in  which  the 
substance  of  the  book  may  be  employed  for  the  instruction  and 
improvement  of  their  people.  The  effect  of  this  consideration  is 
enhanced  by  an  impression,  which  the  author's  recent  labours  have 
distinctly  made  upon  his  mind,  that  much  of  the  fanciful  and  alle- 
gorical interpretation  heretofore  current  has  arisen  from  a  failure 
to  discriminate  sufficiently  between  the  province  of  the  critical  in- 
terpreter and  that  of  the  expository  lecturer  or  preacher,  the  effect 
of  which  has  been  to  foist  into  the  Scriptures,  as  a  part  of  their 
original  and  proper  sense,  a  host  of  applications  and  accommoda- 
tions, which  have  no  right  there,  however  admissible  and  even 
useful  in  their  proper  place.  Let  the  professional  interpreter  con- 
tent himself  with  furnishing  the  raw  material  in  a  sound  and  mer- 
chantable state,  without  attempting  to  prescribe  the  texture,  colour, 
shape,  or  quantity  of  the  indefinitely  varied  fabrics  into  which  it  is 
the  business  of  the  preacher  to  transform  it.  From  these  consid- 
erations it  will  be  perceived  that  the  omission  now  in  question  has 
arisen,  not  merely  from  a  want  of  room,  and  not  at  all  from  any 
disregard  to  practical  utility,  but  on  the  contrary  from  a  desire  to 
promote  it  in  the  most  effectual  manner. 

Another  point,  which  may  be  here  explained,  is  the  relation  of 
the  following  commentary  to  the  authorized  English  Version  of 
Isaiah.  It  was  at  first  proposed  to  make  the  latter  the  immediate 
basis  of  the  exposition,  simply  calling  in  the  aid  of  the  original  to 
rectify  the  errors  or  clear  up  the  obscurities  of  the  translation. 


PREFACE.  v 

The  primary  reason  for  abandoning  this  method  was  its  tendency 
to  generate  an  indirect  and  circuitous  method  of  interpretation.  A 
still  higher  motive  for  the  change  was  afforded  by  its  probable 
effect  in  promoting  thorough  biblical  learning,  and  discouraging  the 
sluggish  disposition  to  regard  the  common  version  as  the  ultimate 
authority,  and  even  to  insist  upon  its  errors  or  fortuitous  peculiar- 
ities as  parts  of  a  divine  revelation.  The  contrary  disposition  to 
depreciate  the  merits  of  the  English  Bible,  by  gratuitous  depar- 
tures from  its  form  or  substance,  is  comparatively  rare,  and  where 
it  does  exist  is  to  be  corrected,  not  by  wilful  ignorance,  but  by 
profound  and  discriminating  knowledge  of  the  version  and  original. 
The  practical  conclusion,  in  the  present  case,  has  been  to  make 
the  Hebrew  text  exclusively  the  subject  of  direct  interpretation, 
but  to  give  the  common  version  all  the  prominence  to  which  it  is 
entitled  by  its  intrinsic  excellence  and  by  its  peculiar  interest  and 
value  to  the  English  reader.  It  may  be  thought  that  the  shortest 
and  easiest  method  of  accomplishing  this  object  would  have  been 
that  adopted  by  Maurer,  Knobel,  and  some  other  writers,  who, 
without  giving  any  continuous  version  of  the  text,  confine  their 
comments  to  its  difficult  expressions.  It  was  found  upon  experi- 
ment, however,  that  much  circumlocution  might  be  spared  in  many 
cases  by  a  simple  version,  or  at  most  by  an  explanatory  para- 
phrase. A  literal  translation  of  the  whole  text  has  therefore  been 
incorporated  in  the  present  work,  not  as  a  mere  appendage  or  ac- 
companiment, much  less  as  a  substitute  or  rival  of  the  common 
version,  which  is  too  completely  in  possession  of  the  public  ear 
and  memory  to  be  easily  displaced  even  if  it  were  desirable,  but 
simply  as  a  necessary  and  integral  part  of  the  interpretation.  The 
grounds  of  this  arrangement  will  be  stated  more  fully  in  the  Intro- 
duction, of  which  it  may  as  well  be  said  in  this  place  as  in  any 
other,  that  it  makes  no  pretensions  to  the  character  of  an  exhaus- 
tive compilation,  but  is  simply,  as  its  name  imports,  a  preparation 
for  what  follows,  consisting  partly  in  preliminary  statements,  partly 
in  general  summaries,  the  particulars  of  which  are  scattered 
through  the  exposition. 

Another  question,  which  presented  itself  early  in  the  progress 
of  the  work,  was  the  question  whether  it  should  be  a  record  of  the 
author's  individual  conclusions  merely,  or  to  some  extent  a  history 


VI  PREFACE. 

of  the  interpretation.  The  only  argument  in  favour  of  the  first 
plan  was  the  opportunity  which  it  afforded  of  including  all  Isaiah 
in  a  single  volume.  As  to  economy  of  time  and  labour,  it  was 
soon  found  that  as  much  of  these  must  be  expended  on  a  simple 
statement  of  the  true  sense  as  would  furnish  the  materials  for  a 
synopsis  of  the  different  opinions.  The  latter  method  was  adopted, 
therefore,  not  merely  for  this  negative  reason,  but  also  for  the  sake 
of  the  additional  interest  imparted  to  the  work  by  this  enlargement 
of  the  plan,  and  the  valuable  antidote  to  exegetical  extravagance 
and  crudity,  afforded  by  a  knowledge  of  earlier  opinions  and  even 
of  exploded  errors.  These  advantages  were  reckoned  of  sufficient 
value  to  be  purchased  even  by  a  sacrifice  of  space,  and  it  was 
therefore  determined  to  confine  the  present  publication  to  the 
Earlier  Prophecies  (ch.  i-xxxix),  the  rest  being  reserved  to  form 
the  subject  of  another  volume.  This  separation  was  the  more  con- 
venient as  the  Later  Prophecies  (ch.  xl-lxvi)  are  now  universally 
regarded  as  a  continuous  and  homogeneous  composition,  requiring, 
in  relation  to  its  authenticity,  a  special  critical  investigation. 

But  although  it  was  determined  that  the  work  should  be  his- 
torical as  well  as  exegetical,  it  was  of  course  impossible  to  com- 
pass the  whole  range  of  writers  on  Isaiah,  some  of  whom  were 
inaccessible,  and  others  wholly  destitute  of  any  thing  original,  and 
therefore  without  influence  upon  the  progress  of  opinion.  This 
distinction  was  particularly  made  in  reference  to  the  older  writers, 
while  a  more  complete  exhibition  was  attempted  of  the  later  liter- 
ature. Some  recent  writers  were  at  first  overlooked  through  ac- 
cident or  inadvertence,  and  the  omission  afterwards  continued  for 
the  sake  of  uniformity,  or  as  a  simple  matter  of  convenience.  Some 
of  these  blanks  it  is  proposed  to  fill  in  any  further  prosecution  of 
the  author's  plan.  The  citation  of  authorities  becomes  less  fre- 
quent and  abundant,  for  the  most  part,  as  the  work  advances  and 
the  reader  is  supposed  to  have  become  familiar  with  the  individual 
peculiarities  of  different  interpreters,  as  well  as  with  the  way  in 
which  they  usually  group  themselves  in  schools  and  parties,  after 
which  it  will  be  generally  found  sufficient  to  refer  to  acknowledged 
leaders  or  the  authors  of  particular  interpretations.  The  promi- 
nence given  to  the  modern  German  writers  has  arisen  not  from 
choice  but  from  necessity,  because  their  labours  have  been  so 


PREFACE.  vii 

abundant,  because  their  influence  is  so  extensive,  and  because  one 
prominent  design  of  the  whole  work  is  to  combine  the  valuable 
processes  and  products  of  the  new  philology  with  sounder  princi- 
ples of  exegesis.  Hence  too  the  constant  effort  to  expound  the 
book  with  scrupulous  adherence  to  the  principles  and  usages  of 
Hebrew  syntax,  as  established  by  the  latest  and  best  writers.  The 
reference  to  particular  grammars  was  gradually  discontinued  and 
exchanged  for  explanations  in  my  own  words,  partly  for  want  of  a 
conventional  standard,  alike  familiar  to  my  readers  and  myself, 
partly  because  the  latter  method  was  soon  found  upon  experiment 
to  be  the  most  effectual  and  satisfactory,  in  reference  to  the; object 
which  I  had  in  view. 

The  appearance  of  the  work  has  been  delayed  by  various 
causes,  but  above  all  by  a  growing  sense  of  its  difficulty  and  of  in- 
capacity to  do  it  justice,  together  with  a  natural  reluctance  to  con- 
fess how  little  after  all  has  been  accomplished.  To  some  it  will 
probably  be  no  commendation  of  the  work  to  say,  that  the  author 
has  considered  it  his  duty  to  record  the  failure  as  well  as  the  suc- 
cess of  exegetical  attempts,  and  to  avoid  the  presumption  of  know- 
ing every  thing  as  well  as  the  disgrace  of  knowing  nothing.  His 
deliberate  conclusion  from  the  facts  with  which  he  has  become 
acquainted  in  the  prosecution  of  his  present  task,  is  that  quite  as 
much  error  has  arisen  from  the  effort  to  know  more  than  is  revealed, 
as  from  the  failure  to  apply  the  means  of  illustration  which  are 
really  at  our  disposal.  As  advantages  arising  from  delay  in  this 
case  may  be  mentioned  some  additional  maturity  of  judgment  and 
the  frequent  opportunity  of  reconsideration,  with  the  aid  of  con- 
temporary writers  on  Isaiah,  of  whom  seven  have  appeared  since 
this  book  was  projected,  besides  several  auxiliary  works  of  great 
importance,  such  asFiirst's  Concordance,  Nordheimer's  Grammar, 
Hiivernick's  Introduction,  Robinson's  Palestine,  the  later  numbers 
of  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  and  the  last  edition  of  his  Manual  Lexi- 
con. It  is  proper  to  add  that,  although  the  plan  was  formed  and 
the  collection  of  materials  begun  more  than  ten  years  ago,  the 
work  has  been  wholly,  and  some  parts  of  it  repeatedly,  reduced  to 
writing  as  it  passed  through  the  press.  The  advantage  thus  se- 
cured of  being  able  to  record  the  last  impressions  and  to  make  use 
of  the  latest  helps,  has  this  accompanying  inconvenience,  that 


vin  PREFACE. 

changes  insensibly  take  place  in  the  details  of  the  execution,  tend- 
ing to  impair  its  uniformity  without  affecting  its  essential  charac- 
ter. To  such  external  blemishes  it  is  of  course  unnecessary  to 
invite  attention  by  any  more  particular  description  or  apology. 

Since  the  printing  of  the  volume  was  completed,  the  typo- 
graphical errors  have  been  found  to  be  more  numerous  than  was 
expected,  although  for  the  most  part  less  injurious  to  the  work 
than  discreditable  to  the  author,  who  is  justly  accountable  for  this 
defect,  on  account  of  the  very  imperfect  state  in  which  the  manu- 
script was  furnished  to  the  printer.     Instead  of  resorting  to  the 
usual  apologies  of  distance  from  the  press  and  inexperience  in  the 
business,  or  appealing  to  the  fact  that  the  sheets  could  be  sub- 
jected only  once  to  his  revision,  he  prefers  to  throw  himself  upon 
the  candour  and  indulgence  of  his  readers,  and  especially  of  those 
who  have  experienced  the  same  mortification.     At  the  same  time, 
it  will  not  be  improper  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  reader,  at  the 
very  outset,  to  a  few  of  the  errata,  which  more  immediately  affect 
the  sense,  or  do  not  readily  correct  themselves. — P.  3,  1.  11,  for 
verb  read  rest. — P.  47,  1.  7,  for  heard  read  hard.     Of  the  errors  in 
the  Hebrew,  which  for  the  most  part  may  be  easily  corrected  by  a 
reference  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  only  one  or  two  will  be  enumer- 
ated here.     On  p.  110,  1.  29,  for  tNM  read  trtbtt — P.  198,  1.  15, 
for  nix  read  *na.— P.  224,  1.  21,  for  tajfj?  read  K*m. — P.  408,  1.  3, 
for  *T*rt  read  ibw.— P.  469,  1.  9,  read  ?|?n\— P.  513,  1.  12,  read 
bsb  ■jpjfc. — P.  515,  1.  11,  read  noXkoL     The  want  of  uniformity  in 
the  insertion  or  omission  of  the  Hebrew  points  is  certainly  a  blem- 
ish, but  will  not,  it  is  hoped,  occasion  any,  serious  inconvenience, 
even  to  the  inexperienced  reader.     It  arose  from  the  accidental 
combination  of  two   different   methods,   each  of  which   has   its 
advantages,  the  one  as  being  more  convenient  for  beginners,  the 
other  as  favouring  the  useful  habit  of  deciphering  the  unpointed 
text,  and  rendering  typographical  correctness  more  attainable. 

Princeton,  April  20,  1 846. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  English  words  prophet,  prophesy,  and  prophecy,  have  long  been 
appropriated,  by  established  usage,  to  the  prediction  of  future  events.  To 
prophesy,  according  to  the  universal  acceptation  of  the  term,  is  to  foretell, 
and  a  prophet  is  one  who  does  or  can  foretell  things  yet  to  come.  This 
restricted  application  of  the  terms  in  question  has  materially  influenced  the 
interpretation  of  the  prophetic  scriptures  by  modern  and  especially  by  Eng- 
lish writers.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  compare  the  common  use  of  these 
expressions  with  the  corresponding  terms  in  Greek  and  Hebrew. 

The  Greek  nQoqnqjrig  (from  nQocprjfii)  is  used  in  the  classics  not  only  to 
denote  specifically  a  foreteller,  but  more  generally  an  authoritative  speaker 
in  the  name  of  God,  in  which  sense  it  is  applied  to  the  official  expounders 
of  the  oracles,  and  to  poets  as  the  prophets  of  the  muses,  i.  e.  as  speaking  in 
their  name,  at  their  suggestion,  or  by  their  inspiration.  This  latitude  of 
meaning,  in  the  classical  usage  of  the  term,  agrees  exactly  with  its  applica- 
tion in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  not  only  to  those  gifted  with  the 
knowledge  of  futurity,  but  in  a  wider  sense  to  inspired  teachers  or  expound- 
ers of  the  will  of  God  in  the  primitive  church.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
our  prophet,  prophesy,  and  prophecy,  are  much  more  restricted  in  their 
import  than  the  Greek  words  from  which  they  are  derived,  as  employed 
both  by  the  classical  and  sacred  writers. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  in  this  restricted  usage  we  adhere  to  the 
primary  and  proper  import  of  the  terms,  as  the  ngo  in  nooyrmi  and  nQocpTJttjg, 
no  less  than  the  prae  in  praedico,  must  have  originally  signified  before,  i.  e. 
beforehand.  Even  this  might  be  plausibly  disputed,  as  the  primary  sense 
of  kqo  would  seem  to  be  not  temporal  but  local,  the  idea  of  priority  in  time 
.  being  given  by  the  best  lexicographers  as  secondary  to  that  of  antecedence 
or  priority  in  place,  in  which  case  the  particle  in  composition  may  have 
originally  signified,  not  so  much  the  futurity  of  the  things  declared,  as  the 
authority  of  the  person  who  declared  them.  (Compare  nqoBarmg,  nQoiGTdpe- 
vog,  antistes,  praetor,  praefectus,  foreman.)  But  even  granting  that  the 
obvious  and  common  supposition  is  correct,  viz.,  that  the  noo  in  noo^m  and 

A 


x  INTRODUCTION. 

its  derivatives  has  primary  reference  to  time,  the  actual  extension  of  the 
terms  to  other  authoritative  declarations,  and  especially  to  those  made  in 
the  name  of  God,  is  clear  from  the  usage  both  of  the  classics  and  of  the 
New  Testament.  Looking  merely  to  these  sources  of  elucidation,  we  might 
still  assert  with  confidence,  that  the  modern  use  of  the  words  prophet  and 
prophecy  is  more  restricted  than  that  of  the  Greek  terms  from  which  they 
are  derived. 

But  this  is  a  very  small  part  of  the  evidence  on  which  the  affirmation 
rests.  The  prophets,  of  whom  the  New  Testament  chiefly  speaks,  are  not 
heathen  prophets,  nor  even  the  nooyriTai  of  the  apostolic  churches,  but  the 
prophets  of  the  old  dispensation.  The  terms  applied  to  them  must  there- 
fore be  interpreted,  not  merely  by  a  reference  to  etymology,  or  to  classical 
usage,  or  to  that  of  the  New  Testament  itself,  but  by  an  appeal  to  the 
import  and  usage  of  the  Hebrew  terms,  which  the  Greek  ones  are  designed 
to  represent.  As  soon  as  we  resort  to  this  source  of  illustration,  the  doubt 
which  seemed  to  overhang  the  question,  when  considered  as  a  question  of 
Greek  usage,  disappears.  We  have  here  no  probabilities  to  balance  as  to 
the  primary  import  of  a  particle,  no  extension  of  the  meaning  of  the  whole 
word  to  account  for  or  explain  away.  The  etymology  of  &033,  and  the 
cognate  verbal  forms,  makes  it  impossible  to  look  upon  foresight  or  prediction 
as  their  primary  and  necessary  import.  The  only  derivation,  which  can 
now  be  regarded  as  philologically  tenable,  is  that  which  makes  the  word 
originally  signify  the  act  of  pouring  forth  or  uttering,  a  natural  figure  in  all 
languages  for  speech,  and  more  especially  for  public,  solemn,  and  continuous 
discourse.  In  actual  usage,  the  Hebrew  words  are  admitted  by  modern 
writers  of  all  schools  and  creeds  to  signify  specifically  one  who  speaks  (or 
the  act  of  speaking)  for  God,  not  only  in  his  name  and  by  his  authority,  but 
under  his  influence,  in  other  words,  by  divine  inspiration.  The  precise 
meaning  of  the  noun  K12J  is  clear  from  Exodus  7  :  1,  where  the  Lord  says 
unto  Moses,  See,  I  have  made  thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron  thy 
brother  shall  be  thy  prophet,  i.  e.  thy  interpreter,  thy  organ  of  communica- 
tion. (See  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  s.  v.  J*^.)  The  etymology  proposed  by 
Redslob,  which  gives  fiOM  the  sense  of  a  person  sprinkled  or  baptized  with 
the  Spirit  of  God,  if  it  can  be  established,  only  makes  the  primary  and 
essential  reference  to  inspiration  still  more  certain  than  the  common  one. 
The  few  departures  from  this  simple  elementary  idea,  which  the  lexicons 
still  recognise,  may  all  be  reduced  to  it  more  easily  and  naturally  than  to 
any  other.  For  example,  when  Abraham  is  called  a  prophet  (Gen.  20  :  7), 
there  is  no  need  of  diluting  the  sense  of  the  expression  into  that  of  a  mere 
friend  of  God,  which  is  sufficiently  implied  in  the  strict  and  common  sense 
of  an  inspired  person.  It  is  equally  unnecessary,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
give  the  verb  the  sense  of  raving  or  becoming  mad,  when  applied  to  Saul 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

(1  Sam.  18  :  10),  since  it  is  there  expressly  mentioned  that  an  evil  spirit 
from  God  had  come  upon  him,  so  that  he  was  really  inspired,  however  fear- 
ful and  mysterious  the  nature  of  the  inspiration  may  have  been.  A  com 
plete  induction  of  particulars  would  show,  with  scarcely  the  appearance  of 
a  doubtful  case  or  an  exception,  that  the  essential  idea,  running  through  the 
whole  Hebrew  usage  of  the  verb  and  noun,  is  that  of  inspiration.  The 
suggestion  of  Gesenius,  that  the  verb  is  used  exclusively  in  passive  or  re- 
flexive forms  because  the  prophet  was  supposed  to  be  under  a  controlling 
influence,  is  not  improbable  in  itself,  and  harmonizes  fully  with  the  usage  of 
the  words  as  already  stated. 

Another  obvious  deduction  from  the  usage  of  the  language  is,  that 
although  Wdg,  like  many  other  terms  of  such  perpetual  occurrence,  is  em- 
ployed both  in  a  wider  and  a  more  restricted  sense,  the  distinction  thus  made 
is  not  that  between  inspiration  in  general  and  the  foresight  of  the  future  in 
particular.  There  is  probably  not  a  single  instance  in  which  the  word 
denotes  the  latter,  except  as  one  important  function  of  the  power  which  it 
properly  describes.  The  gift  of  prophecy  included  that  of  prophetic  fore- 
sight, but  it  included  more.  The  prophet  was  inspired  to  reveal  the  will  of 
God,  to  act  as  an  organ  of  communication  between  God  and  man.  The 
subject  of  the  revelations  thus  conveyed  was  not  and  could  not  be  restricted 
to  the  future.  It  embraced  the  past  and  present,  and  extended  to  those 
absolute  and  universal  truths  which  have  no  relation  to  time.  This  is  what 
we  should  expect  a  priori  in  a  divine  revelation,  and  it  is  what  we  actually 
6nd  it  to  contain.  That  the  prophets  of  the  old  dispensation  were  not  mere 
foretellers  of  things  future,  is  apparent  from  their  history  as  well  as  from  their 
writings.  The  historical  argument  is  stated  forcibly  by  Gill  when  he  ob- 
serves, that  Daniel  proved  himself  a  prophet  by  telling  Nebuchadnezzar  what 
he  had  dreamed,  as  much  as  by  interpreting  the  dream  itself;  that  it  was 
only  by  prophetic  inspiration  that  Elijah  knew  what  Gehazi  had  been  doing ; 
and  that  the  woman  of  Samaria  very  properly  called  Christ  a  prophet,  be- 
cause he  told  her  all  things  that  ever  she  did.  In  all  these  cases,  and  in 
multitudes  of  others,  the  essential  idea  is  that  of  inspiration,  its  frequent 
reference  to  things  still  future  being  accidental,  i.  e.  not  included  in  the  uni- 
form and  necessary  import  of  the  terms. 

The  restriction  of  these  terms  in  modern  parlance  to  the  prediction  of 
events  still  future  has  arisen  from  the  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the 
revelations  made  in  Scripture,  and  precisely  those  which  are  the  most  sur- 
prising and  impressive,  are  of  this  description.  The  frequency  of  such 
revelations,  and  the  prominence  given  to  them,  not  in  this  modern  usage 
merely,  but  in  the  word  of  God  itself,  admit  of  easy  explanation.  It  is  partly 
owing  to  the  fact  that  revelations  of  the  future  would  be  naturally  sought 
with  more  avidity,  and  treated  with  more  deference,  than  any  other  by 


xii  INTRODUCTION. 

mankind  in  general.  It  is  further  owing  to  the  fact  that  of  all  the  kinds  of 
revelation,  this  is  the  one  which  affords  the  most  direct  and  convincing  proof 
of  the  prophet's  inspiration.  The  knowledge  of  the  present  or  the  past  or 
of  general  truths  might  he  imparted  by  special  inspiration,  but  it  might  also 
be  acquired  in  other  ways  ;  and  this  possibility  of  course  makes  the  evidence 
of  inspiration  thus  afforded  more  complete  and  irresistible  than  any  other. 
Hence  the  function  of  foretelling  what  was  future,  although  but  a  part  of 
the  prophetic  office,  was  peculiarly  conspicuous  and  prominent  in  public 
view,  and  apt  to  be  more  intimately  associated  with  the  office  itself  in  the 
memory  of  man. 

These  considerations  seem  sufficient  to  account,  not  only  for  the  change 
of  meaning  which  the  words  have  undergone  in  later  usage,  but  also  for  the 
instances,  if  any  such  there  be,  in  which  the  Bible  itself  employs  them  to 
denote  exclusively  prophetic  foresight  or  the  actual  prediction  of  the  future. 
But  there  is  still  another  reason,  more  important  than  either  of  these,  afforded 
by  the  fact,  that  the  old  dispensation,  with  all  its  peculiar  institutions,  was 
prospective  in  its  character,  a  preparation  for  better  things  to  come.  It  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  that  a  part  of  this  economy  so  marked  and  promi- 
nent as  prophecy,  should  have  exhibited  a  special  leaning  towards  futurity. 

This  naturally  leads  us  from  the  theoretical  idea  of  a  prophet  as  a  person 
■speaking  by  divine  authority  and  inspiration,  to  the  practical  consideration  of 
the  end  or  purpose  aimed  at  in  the  whole  prophetic  institution.  This  was  not 
merely  the  relief  of  private  doubts,  much  less  the  gratification  of  private  curi- 
osity. The  gift  of  prophecy  was  closely  connected  with  the  general  design  of 
the  old  economy.  The  foundation  of  the  system  was  the  Law,  as  recorded  in 
the  five  books  of  Moses.  In  that,  as  an  epitome;  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  contained,  at  least  as  to  its  seminal  principles.  The  single  book  of 
Deuteronomy,  and  that  the  very  one  with  which  critical  caprice  in  modern 
times  has  taken  the  most  liberties,  exhibits  specimens  of  every  style  employed 
by  the  sacred  writers  elsewhere.  Still  more  remarkably  is  this  true  of  the 
whole  Pentateuch,  in  reference  not  merely  to  its  manner  but  its  matter,  as 
comprising  virtually  all  that  is  developed  and  applied  in  the  revelations  of 
the  later  books.  To  make  this  developement  and  application  was  the  busi- 
ness of  the  prophets.  The  necessity  of  such  an  institution  was  no  after- 
thought. The  law  itself  provides  for  it.  The  promise  of  a  prophet  like 
unto  Moses,  in  the  eighteenth  of  Deuteronomy,  according  to  one  of  its  most 
plausible  interpretations,  comprehends  the  promise  of  a  constant  succession 
•of  inspired  men,  so  far  as  this  should  be  required  by  the  circumstances  of  the 
people,  of  which  succession  Christ  himself  was  to  be  the  greatest. 

This  promise  was  abundantly  fulfilled.  In  every  emergency  requiring 
such  an  interposition,  we  find  prophets  present  and  active,  and  in  some 
important  periods  of  the  history  of  Israel  they  existed  in  great  numbers. 


INTRODUCTION.  xm 

These,  though  not  all  inspired  writers,  were  all  inspired  men,  raised  up  and 
directed  by  a  special  divine  influence,  to  signify  and  sometimes  to  execute 
the  will  of  God,  in  the  administration  of  the  theocracy.  Joshua  is  expressly 
represented  as  enjoying  such  an  influence,  and  is  always  reckoned  in  the 
Jewish  tradition  as  a  prophet.  The  judges  who  succeeded  him  were  all 
raised  up  in  special  emergencies,  and  were  directed  and  controlled  by  a  spe- 
cial divine  influence  or  inspiration.  Samuel  was  one  of  the  most  eminent 
prophets.  After  the  institution  of  the  monarchy  we  read  constantly  of  pro- 
phets distinct  from  the  civil  rulers.  After  the  schism  between  Judah  and 
Ephraim,  there  continued  to  be  prophets  even  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes.  They  were  peculiarly  necessary  there  indeed,  because  the  people 
of  that  kingdom  were  cut  off  from  the  sanctuary  and  its  services,  as  bonds 
of  union  with  Jehovah.  The  prophetic  ministry  continued  through  the 
Babylonish  exile,  and  ceased  some  years  after  the  restoration,  in  the  person 
of  Malachi,  whom  the  Jews  unanimously  represent  as  the  last  of  their 
prophets. 

In  tracing  this  succession,  it  is  evident  that  the  history  attaches  no 
importance  to  the  unbroken  series  of  incumbents,  and  describes  them  as 
deriving  their  prophetic  character,  not  from  their  predecessors,  but  immedi- 
ately from  God.  The  cases  of  Joshua  and  Elisha  are  perhaps  the  only 
ones  in  which  a  prophet  is  expressly  said  to  have  inducted  his  successor  into 
office ;  and  even  if  it  could  be  fairly  inferred  from  these,  that  such  was  the 
ordinary  practice,  still  the  silence  of  the  history  implies  that  the  validity  of 
the  prophetic  ministrations  was  dependent  upon  no  external  rite  of  transfer 
and  upon  no  unbroken  continuity  in  the  succession.  This  presumption  is 
the  stronger  as  a  perfect  series  cannot  be  made  out,  even  by  inference  and 
combination,  from  the  recorded  history,  which  usually  speaks  of  the  prophets 
so  as  to  suggest  the  idea,  not  so  much  of  an  order  which  could  never  be 

DO  ' 

interrupted  or  suspended,  as  of  one  which  should  not  wholly  cease  until  its 
purpose  was  accomplished,  and  should  never  be  wanting  in  any  emergency 
which  called  for  a  divine  interposition.  In  this,  which  is  the  true  sense  of 
the  promise,  it  was  signally  fulfilled,  so  that  although  we  may  not  be  able  to 
demonstrate  a  perpetual  succession  of  inspired  representatives  or  messengers 
from  God,  we  can  safely  affirm  that  he  never  left  himself  without  witness, 
or  his  people  without  counsel,  consolation,  or  reproof. 

With  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  inspiration  under  which  these  prophets 
spoke  and  acted,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Bible  itself  represents  it  as 
plenary,  or  fully  adequate  to  the  attainment  of  its  end.  (2  Tim.  3:  16.  2 
Pet.  1  :  21.)  Where  this  end  was  external  action,  it  was  sufficiently 
secured  by  the  gift  of  courage,  strength,  and  practical  wisdom.  Where  the 
instruction  of  God's  people  was  the  object,  whether  in  reference  to  the  past, 
the  present,  or  the  future  ;  whether  in  word,  in  writing,  or  in  both  ;  whether 


xiv  INTRODUCTION, 

for  temporary  ends,  or  with  a  view  to  perpetual  preservation ;  the  prophets 
are  clearly  represented  as  infallible,  i.e.  incapable  of  erring  or  deceiving, 
with  respect  to  the  matter  of  their  revelation.  How  far  this  object  was  se- 
cured by  direct  suggestion,  by  negative  control,  or  by  an  elevating  influence 
upon  the  native  powers,  is  a  question  of  no  practical  importance  to  those 
who  hold  the  essential  doctrine  that  the  inspiration  was  in  all  cases  such  as 
to  render  those  who  were  inspired  infallible.  Between  this  supposition  and 
the  opposite  extreme,  which  denies  inspiration  altogether,  or  resolves  it  into 
mere  excitement  of  the  imagination  and  the  sensibilities,  like  the  afflatus  of 
a  poet  or  an  orator,  there  seems  to  be  no  definite  and  safe  position.  Either 
the  prophets  were  not  inspired  at  all  in  any  proper  sense,  or  they  were 
so  inspired  as  to  be  infallible. 

As  to  the  mode  in  which  the  required  impression  was  made,  it  seems 
both  vain  and  needless  to  attempt  any  definite  description  of  it.  The  ulti- 
mate effect  would  be  the  same  in  any  case,  if  not  upon  the  prophet,  upon 
those  who  heard  or  read  his  prophecies.  So  far  as  any  thing  can  be  inferred 
from  incidental  or  explicit  statements  of  the  Scripture,  the  most  usual  method 
of  communication  would  appear  to  have  been  that  of  immediate  vision,  i.  e. 
the  presentation  of  the  thing  to  be  revealed  as  if  it  were  an  object  of  sight. 
Thus  Micaiah  saw  Israel  scattered  on  the  hills  like  sheep  without  a  shepherd 
(1  Kings  22:  17),  and  Isaiah  saw  Jehovah  sitting  on  a  lofty  throne  (IsaL 
6:  1).  That  this  was  the  most  usual  mode  of  presentation,  is  probable  not 
only  from  occasional  expressions  such  as  those  just  quoted,  but  from  the  fact, 
that  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  prophetic  revelations  are  precisely  such 
as  might  be  painted  and  subjected  to  the  sense  of  sight.  The  same  conclu- 
sion is  confirmed  by  the  use  of  the  words  seer  and  vision  as  essentially  equi- 
valent to  prophet  and  prophecy.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  supposing 
that  this  method  of  communication,  even  if  it  were  the  common  one,  was 
used  invariably.  Some  things  in  the  prophecies  require  us  to  suppose  that 
they  were  made  known  to  the  prophet  just  as  he  made  them  known  to 
others,  i.  e.  by  the  simple  suggestion  of  appropriate  words.  But  this  whole 
question  is  rather  one  of  curiosity  than  use,  even  in  reference  to  inter- 
pretation. 

A  kindred  question,  but  distinct  from  this,  is  that  respecting  the  mental 
and  bodily  condition  of  the  prophet,  under  the  influence  of  inspiration. 
Whatever  we  imagine  to  have  been  the  mode  of  the  communication,  whether 
visual  or  verbal,  in  the  general  or  in  any  given  case,  it  may  still  be  made  a 
question  whether  the  prophet,  in  receiving  such  communications,  was  as 
fully  in  possession  of  his  faculties,  and  in  the  exercise  of  self-control,  as  at 
any  other  time ;  or  whether,  on  the  contrary,  he  was  in  what  the  Greeks 
called  wGramg,  a  state  of  passive  subjection  to  a  higher  power,  holding  his 
own  faculties  in  temporary  but  complete  abeyance.     It  is  well  known  that 


INTRODUCTION.  xv 

the  prophets  and  diviners  of  the  heathen  world,  during  their  seasons  of 
pretended  inspiration,  exhibited  the  outward  signs  of  violent  excitement 
often  amounting  to  insanity.  That  this  was  not  regarded  as  an  accidental 
circumstance,  but  as  a  natural  and  necessary  sign  of  inspiration,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  etymological  affinity  between  the  Greek  words  fidvrtg  and 
ftavia  or  ^annual.  The  early  Fathers  uniformly  speak  of  this  maniacal 
excitement  as  characteristic  of  the  heathen  inspiration,  whether  real  or  pre- 
tended, and  describe  the  inspiration  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  as  distinguished 
by  the  opposite  peculiarities  of  calmness,  self-possession,  and  active  intelli- 
gence. This  is  distinctly  and  repeatedly  asserted  by  Chrysostom,  Augustin, 
and  Jerome,  who  ascribes  the  contrary  opinion  to  Montanus  and  his  follow- 
ers. In  our  own  day  it  has  been  revived,  not  only  by  Gesenius  and  others, 
who  deny  the  real  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  but  by  Hengstenberg,  who 
steadfastly  maintains  it.  In  the  first  part  of  his  Christology,  he  undertakes 
to  explain  the  disregard  of  chronological  relations  by  the  prophets,  and  their 
fragmentary  manner  of  exhibiting  a  subject,  from  the  ecstatic  state  in  which 
they  uttered  their  predictions.  This  opinion  has  not  only  been  attacked 
and  ridiculed  by  later  writers  of  a  very  different  school,  but  disavowed  by 
others  of  the  same  school,  especially  by  Havernick,  who  in  his  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament  (§  199)  argues  at  length  in  favour  of  the  doctrine 
that  the  mental  condition  of  the  prophets  in  receiving  their  divine  communi- 
cations cannot  have  been  a  morbid  one.  The  most  serious  objections  to  the 
theory  of  Hengstenberg,  besides  its  opposition  to  the  common  judgment  of 
the  church  in  every  age,  and  its  apparent  derogation  from  the  dignity  of  the 
prophetic  character,  are,  the  want  of  any  clear  support  in  Scripture,  and 
the  inutility  of  such  a  supposition  to  attain  the  end  at  which  he  aims, 
and  which  may  just  as  well  be  answered  by  supposing  that  the  peculi- 
arities ascribed  to  the  extraordinary  state  of  the  inspired  writers,  were 
directly  produced  by  something  negative  or  positive  in  the  divine  communi- 
cation itself.  If  they  bring  remote  events  into  juxtaposition,  the  simplest 
explanation  of  the  fact  is,  not  that  they  were  in  a  state  which  rendered  them 
incapable  of  estimating  chronological  distinctions,  but  that  these  distinctions 
were  withheld  from  them,  or  that  although  acquainted  with  them  they  inten- 
tionally overlooked  them  and  combined  the  objects  in  another  mode  and  on 
another  principle.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  entirely  sufficient  to  explain 
what  Peter  says  (I  Pet.  1 :  12)  without  resorting  to  a  supposition  which, 
unless  absolutely  necessary,  is  to  be  avoided  as  of  doubtful  tendency. 

It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  prophets  of  the  old  dispensation  had 
any  training  for  their  work  at  all  analogous  to  what  we  call  a  professional 
education.  Some  have  supposed  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  frequently  men- 
tioned in  the  books  of  Kings,  to  have  been  young  men  in  a  course  of  prepa- 
ration for  the  prophetic  ministry.     To  this  it  has  been  objected,  that  their 


xvi  INTRODUCTION. 

ministry  depended  on  the  gift  of  inspiration,  for  which  no  human  training 
could  compensate  or  prepare  them.  But  although  they  could  not  act  as 
prophets  without  inspiration,  they  might  be  prepared  for  those  parts  of  the 
work  which  depended  upon  culture,  such  as  a  correct  mode  of  expression, 
just  as  men  may  now  be  trained  by  education  for  the  work  of  the  ministry, 
although  convinced  that  its  success  depends  entirely  on  the  divine  blessing. 
It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  inspiration  under  which  the  prophets  acted 
left  them  in  full  possession  of  their  faculties,  native  and  acquired,  and  with 
all  their  peculiarities  of  thought  and  feeling  unimpaired.  The  whole  subject 
of  prophetic  education  is,  however,  one  of  surmise  and  conjecture,  rather 
than  of  definite  knowledge  or  of  practical  utility. 

To  the  government  the  prophets  do  not  seem  to  have  sustained  any 
definite  or  fixed  relation,  as  component  parts  of  a  political  system.  The 
extent  and  manner  of  their  influence,  in  this  respect,  depended  on  the  char- 
acter of  the  rulers,  the  state  of  affairs,  and  the  nature  of  the  messages  which 
they  were  commissioned  to  deliver.  As  a  class,  the  prophets  influenced  the 
government,  not  by  official  formal  action,  but  as  special  messengers  from 
God,  by  whom  he  was  represented  in  particular  emergencies,  and  whose 
authority  could  neither  be  disputed  nor  resisted  by  any  magistrate  without 
abjuring  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  theocracy.  Even  the  apostate 
kings  of  Israel  acknowledged  the  divine  legation  of  the  prophets  of  Jehovah. 

The  opinion  that  the  priestly  and  prophetic  functions  were  regarded  as 
identical,  or  commonly  united  in  the  same  persons  under  the  theocracy,  is 
wholly  destitute  of  scriptural  foundation.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  priests 
might  be  inspired,  and  that  the  High  Priest  may  have  been  so  always  ex 
officio.  Two  of  the  most  eminent  prophets  (Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel)  were 
unquestionably  priests.  But  the  sacerdotal  and  prophetic  offices,  as  such, 
were  perfectly  distinct,  as  well  in  function  as  in  purpose,  being  instituted  to 
promote  the  same  great  end  in  different  ways,  the  one  by  maintaining  the 
symbolical  and  sacramental  forms  of  the  theocracy,  the  other  by  correcting 
their  abuse,  and  keeping  constantly  in  view  their  spiritual  import  and  design, 
as  shadows  of  good  things  to  come. 

The  relation  of  the  prophets  to  the  people  and  the  manner  of  their  inter- 
course appear  to  have  been  subject  to  no  uniform  and  rigid  law.  From 
Elijah's  hairy  dress  and  John  the  Baptist's  imitation  of  it,  some  have  hastily 
inferred  that  the  prophets  were  commonly  distinguished  by  a  peculiar  dress 
and  an  ascetic  mode  of  life.  Whether  the  same  conclusion  can  be  drawn 
from  the  sackcloth  mentioned  in  Isaiah  20 :  2,  is  considered  doubtful.  The 
truth  appears  to  be,  that  from  the  very  nature  of  the  prophetic  ministry, 
it  was  exempted  from  the  rules  of  rigid  outward  uniformity.  Eichhorn  has 
justly  mentioned  as  a  characteristic  difference  between  the  heathen  and 
the  Jewish  prophets,  that  whereas  the  former  tried  to  enhance  their  author- 


INTRODUCTION.  xtii 

Jty  by  darknes3  and  seclusion  and  mysterious  accompaniments,  the  latter 
moved  among  the  people  without  any  such  factitious  advantages. 

With  respect  to  the  promulgation  and  preservation  of  the  prophecies, 
there  have  been  various  opinions  and  many  fanciful  conjectures.  Some 
suppose  the  prophets  to  have  been  a  kind  of  demagogues  or  popular  orators, 
whose  speeches,  unless  previously  prepared,  were  afterwards  recorded  by 
themselves  or  others.  Another  supposition  is  that  the  prophets  were  inspired 
writers,  and  that  their  prophecies  were  published  only  as  written  compositions. 
A  distinction  as  to  this  point  has  by  some  been  drawn  between  the  earlier 
and  the  later  prophets.  From  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  accession  of  Uz- 
ziah,  a  period  of  nearly  seven  hundred  years,  a  large  proportion  of  the 
prophets  are  supposed  to  have  performed  their  functions  orally  and  without 
leaving  any  thing  on  record  ;  whereas  after  that  period  they  were  led  to  act 
not  only  for  the  present  but  the  future.  We  have  no  cause  to  doubt,  how- 
ever, that  we  now  have  in  possession  all  that  was  written  aforetime  for  our 
learning.  '  And  in  the  case  of  any  prophecy,  the  question  whether  it  was 
orally  delivered  before  it  was  written,  is  comparatively  unimportant,  as  our 
only  concern  with  it  is  in  its  written  form.  The  idea  that  the  prophecies 
now  extant  are  mere  summaries  of  long  discourses,  is  ingenious  and  plausible 
in  certain  cases,  but  admits  of  no  historical  or  certain  demonstration. 

A  question  of  more  moment  is  that  with  respect  to  the  way  in  which 
the  writings  were  preserved,  whether  by  private  circulation  as  detached 
compositions,  or  by  solemn  enrolment  and  deposit  in  the  sanctuary.  The 
modern  critics  who  dispute  the  integrity  and  genuineness  of  many  passages 
lean  to  the  former  supposition  ;  but  the  latter  is  unquestionably  favoured  by 
the  whole  drift  of  Scripture  and  the  current  of  ancient  usage,  sacred  and  pro- 
fane, with  respect  to  writings  which  were  looked  upon  as  sacred.  It  may 
well  be  doubted  whether  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  there  was  any  exten- 
sive circulation  of  books  at  all,  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  as  hard  to  disprove 
as  to  prove  the  position,  that  the  only  literature  of  the  nation  was  THE 
BOOK  or  SCRIPTURE  ("BSfn),  which  from  the  time  of  Moses  was  kept 
open,  and  in  which  the  writings  of  the  prophets  may  have  been  recorded 
as  they  were  produced.  At  all  events,  it  seems  unreasonable  and  at  va- 
riance with  the  tenor  of  Scripture  to  suppose  that  writings  held  to  be  inspired 
were  left  to  circulate  at  random  and  to  share  the  fate  of  other  composi- 
tions, without  any  effort  to  attest  their  genuineness  or  to  secure  their  preser- 
vation. 

Upon  this  improbable  hypothesis  some  modern  critics  have  constructed 
a  theory  as  to  the  formation  of  the  Heberew  Canon.  They  suppose  that 
the  books  now  composing  the  Old  Testament  were  long  in  circulation  as 
detached  compositions,  or  at  most  in  small  collections ;  but  that  after  the 
Babylonish  exile,  measures  were  taken  to  secure  the  national  literature  from 


xvni  INTRODUCTION. 

destruction  by  bringing  together  the  most  highly  esteemed  books  then  ex- 
tant, to  which  others  were  added  from  time  to  time  until  the  period  of  the 
Maccabees.  In  a  similar  manner  they  account  for  the  threefold  division  of 
the  Old  Testament,  into  the  Law,  Prophets,  and  Scriptures  (a^rs,  ayio- 
yqaya),  found  in  all  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  referred  to,  not  only  by  Philo 
and  Josephus,  but  in  the  New  Testament  (Luke  24:  44).  This  they 
account  for,  by  supposing  that  the  five  books  of  Moses,  because  of  their 
superior  authority,  were  first  placed  together  by  themselves  ;  that  the  earlier 
histories  and  prophecies  were  then  joined  in  a  second  volume ;  and  that  a 
fourth  was  opened  for  the  reception  of  books  which  might  be  afterwards 
discovered  or  composed.  The  obvious  design  of  this  whole  theory  is  to 
account  for  the  admission  of  books  into  the  canon,  which  these  critics  are 
unwilling  to  recognise  as  ancient,  such  as  Daniel,  Esther,  Chronicles,  and 
many  of  the  Psalms. 

Others  attempt  to  account  for  the  threefold  division,  as  founded  on  the 
subjects  of  the  different  books.  But  this  supposition  is  precluded  by  the 
fact,  that  historical  books  are  found  in  all  the  three  divisions ;  Genesis  in  the 
first ;  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  in  the  second  ;  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  Ruth,  and  Esther  in  the  third ;  to  which  it  may  be  added,  that 
Daniel  is  found  in  the  third  division,  and  that  Jeremiah's  Prophecies  are 
separated  from  his  Lamentations. 

The  uniform  tradition  of  the  Jews  is,  that  the  sacred  books  were  finally 
collected  and  arranged  by  Ezra  and  his  contemporaries,  under  the  guidance 
of  divine  inspiration,  and  that  the  threefold  division  is  coeval  with  the  forma- 
tion of  the  canon.  As  to  the  principle  of  the  division,  some  of  the  Jewish 
doctors  teach  that  it  is  founded  on  the  different  degrees  of  inspiration  under 
which  the  books  were  written,  the  highest  being  that  of  Moses,  and  the  lowest 
that  of  the  Hagiographa  or  Scriptures.  This  last  opinion  is  not  only  desti- 
tute of  evidence  or  scriptural  foundation,  but  at  variance  with  the  tenor  of 
the  sacred  writings  and  of  dangerous  tendency. 

The  most  satisfactory  solution  of  the  fact  in  question  is  the  one  which 
supposes  the  law  to  have  been  placed  first  as  the  foundation  of  the  whole, 
and  the  remaining  books  to  have  been  divided,  not  with  respect  to  their 
contents  or  the  degree  of  inspiration  in  their  writers,  but  with  respect  to 
their  official  character,  the  second  great  division  being  appropriated  to  the 
writings  of  men  who  were  not  only  inspired  but  prophets  by  profession,  who 
possessed  not  only  the  prophetic  gift  but  the  prophetic  office,  while  the  third 
place  was  reserved  for  those  who,  although  equally  inspired,  held  no  such 
station.  Thus  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  having  been 
composed,  according  to  the  ancient  tradition,  by  D-^lpSS  or  official  prophets, 
are  prefixed  to  the  prophecies  properly  so  called,  while  the  writings  of  David 
and  Daniel,  who  were  not  such,  are  included  in  the  third  division. 


INTRODUCTION.  xix 

The  principal  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  hypothesis  arises  from  the  fact, 
that  different  writings  of  the  same  man,  viz.  Jeremiah,  are  found  both  in  the 
second  and  third  division.  This  single  exception  to  the  general  rule  has  been 
accounted  for  by  some,  upon  the  ground,  that  the  book  of  Lamentations, 
although  written  by  a  Prophet  in  the  strict  sense,  is  more  an  expression  of 
personal  feeling  than  the  other  prophecies ;  by  others,  upon  the  ground  of 
its  liturgical  character,  which  naturally  led  to  its  insertion  in  the  same  part 
of  the  Canon  with  the  Psalms.  Another  objection  to  this  whole  explana- 
tion of  the  threefold  division  has  been  drawn  from  the  absence  of  entire 
uniformity  in  the  application  of  the  name  K^aa  to  the  official  or  professional 
prophet,  and  of  Wh  (seer)  to  an  inspired  person,  simply  as  such.  The  diffi- 
culty here  referred  to  does  not  lie  in  the  promiscuous  use  of  nQoyfoqg  in  the 
New  Testament,  where  David,  for  example,  is  expressly  called  a  Prophet. 
This  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  want  of  any  Greek  equivalent  to  seer. 
But  the  same  solution  is  not  applicable  to  the  use  of  both  words  seer  and 
prophet,  in  the  Old  Testament  itself,  with  reference  to  one  and  the  same 
person.  (E.  g.  Gad  the  seer,  1  Ch.  21  :  9  ;  Gad  the  prophet,  2  Sam. 
24:  11.)  How  far  this  rare  departure  from  the  usage  ought  to  weigh 
against  the  theory  in  general,  or  how  far  it  may  be  accounted  for  by  special 
circumstances  in  the  case  of  Gad,  are  questions  which  may  be  considered 
doubtful.  All  that  need  be  affirmed  is  that  this  hypothesis  respecting  the 
division  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  although  not  susceptible  of  demonstration,  is 
more  satisfactory  and  probable  than  any  other  which  has  been  proposed. 

The  application  of  the  name  d^pS,  ayioyqaya,  or  Scriptures,  to  the 
third  division  only,  has  been  variously  explained ;  but  the  simplest  and  most 
natural  solution  is,  that  the  first  two  divisions  having  been  distinguished  by 
appropriate  names,  the  third  was  left  in  possession  of  that  which,  if  there  had 
been  no  division,  would  have  been  appropriate  to  the  whole.  Thus  under- 
stood, the  three  parts  of  the  Canon  are  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the 
(other)  Scriptures. 

In  the  second  of  these  great  divisions,  that  of  the  Prophets  properly  so 
called,  a  prominent  place,  and  for  the  most  part  the  first  place,  has  been 
always  held,  so  far  as  we  can  trace  its  history,  by  a  book  bearing  the  name 
of  Isaiah.  A  Talmudical  tradition  represents  it  as  having  formerly  been 
preceded  by  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  Some  of  the  modern  German  writers 
take  advantage  of  this  statement,  as  a  ground  for  the  presumption  that  the 
book  in  its  present  form  was  not.  completed  until  after  those  of  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel.  This  supposition,  the  design  of  which  is  to  facilitate  the  critical 
rejection  of  the  later  prophecies,  is  not  only  an  unauthorized  inference  from 
a  fact  extremely  dubious  at  best,  but  at  variance  with  the  simultaneous  close 
of  the  whole  canon,  which  we  have  seen  to  be  the  only  well-sustained 
hypothesis.     The  Talmudists  themselves  explain  the  fact  which  they  allege, 


xi  INTRODUCTION. 

> 

upon  the  ground  that  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  are  for  the  most  part  minatory 

prophets,  and  that  the  more  consolatory  writings  of  Isaiah  were  subjoined  as 
a  relief  and  antidote.  A  far  more  probable  solution  is,  that  the  arrangement 
in  question,  if  it  ever  prevailed,  arose  from  the  intimate  connexion  of  the 
second  book  of  Kings  with  Jeremiah,  and  perhaps  from  a  traditional  ascrip- 
tion of  it  to  that  prophet  as  its  author.  The  necessity  of  any  explanation 
seems,  however,  to  be  superseded  by  the  doubt  which  overhangs  the  fact 
itself,  especially  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the  uniform  position  of  Isaiah 
before  the  other  two,  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  now  extant,  both  of 
the  Hebrew  text  and  of  the  ancient  versions. 

The  name  Isaiah  is  a  compound  word  denoting  the  Salvation  of  Jehovah, 
to  which  some  imagine  that  the  Prophet  himself  alludes  in  ch.  8:18.  The 
abbreviated  form  (rt}2f£j)  is  never  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  Prophet,  though 
the  rabbins  employ  it  in  titles  and  inscriptions.  Both  forms  of  the  name 
are  applied  in  the  Old  Testament  to  other  persons,  in  all  which  cases  the 
English  Version  employs  a  different  orthography,  viz.  Jeshaiah  or  Jesaiah. 
In  the  New  Testament  our  Version  writes  the  name  Esaias,  after  the  exam- 
ple of  the  Vulgate,  varying  slightly  from  the  Greek  'Hoatag,  used  both  in 
the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Testament.  To  the  name  of  the  Prophet  we 
find  several  times  added  that  of  his  father  Amoz  ("paa),  which  several  of 
the  Greek  Fathers  have  confounded  with  the  name  of  the  prophet  Amos 
(Diss),  though  they  differ  both  in  the  first  and  last  letter.  This  mistake, 
occasioned  by  the  Septuagint  version,  which  writes  both  names  alike  (Laura's), 
may  be  considered  the  more  venial,  as  two  of  the  latest  writers  on  Isaiah  in 
the  English  language  have,  in  the  very  act  of  setting  Cyril  and  Eusebius 
right,  themselves  committed  a  like  error  by  misspelling  the  name  Amos 
(bias).  The  more  ancient  mistake  may  have  been  facilitated  by  a  know- 
ledge of  the  Jewish  maxim,  now  recorded  in  the  Talmud,  that  whenever  a 
prophet's  father  is  named,  the  father  was  himself  a  prophet.  The  Jews 
themselves,  in  this  case,  are  contented  with  observing  the  affinity  between 
the  names  Amoz  ("pEs)  and  Amaziah  (tt-nsax),  upon  which  they  gravely 
found  a  positive  assertion  that  these  men  were  brothers,  and  that  Isaiah  was 
therefore  of  the  blood-royal,  being  cousin-german  to  the  first  king  mentioned 
in  the  opening  of  his  prophecies.  This  tradition  has  had  great  vogue 
among  Jews  and  Christians,  some  of  whom  account  for  the  urbanity  and 
polish  of  Isaiah's  manner  as  a  natural  effect  of  his  nobility.  It  is  unfortu- 
nately true,  however,  that  the  Jewish  doctors  sometimes  invent  facts 
for  the  purpose  of  filling  up  the  chasms  of  history,  and  this  is  especially  to 
be  suspected  where  the  statement  seems  to  rest  on  an  etymological  conceit 
or  any  other  fanciful  analogy.  At  all  events,  we  have  no  satisfactory  assur- 
ance of  the  truth  of  this  tradition,  any  more  than  of  that  which  makes  the 
prophet  to   have  been   the  father-in-law   of  king  Manasseh.     The   most 


INTRODUCTION.  xxi 

probable  statement  is  that  made  by  one  of  the  most  learned  and  judicious  of 
the  rabbins  (David  Kimchi),  that  the  family  and  tribe  to  which  Isaiah  be- 
longed are  now  entirely  unknown.  Of  his  domestic  circumstances  we  know 
merely,  that  his  wife  and  two  of  his  sons  are  mentioned  by  himself  (ch.  7: 
3.    8:3,  4),  to  which  some  add  a  third,  as  we  shall  see  below. 

The  only  historical  account  of  this  Prophet  is  contained  in  the  book 
which  bears  his  name,  and  in  the  parallel  passages  of  Second  Kings,  which 
exhibit  unequivocal  signs  of  being  from  the  hand  of  the  same  writer.  The 
6rst  sentence  of  Isaiah's  own  book,  which  is  now  commonly  admitted  to  be 
genuine,  assigns  as  the  period  of  his  ministry  the  four  successive  reigns  of 
Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  one  of  the  most  eventful  periods  in 
the  history  of  Judah.  The  two  first  reigns  here  mentioned  were  exceed- 
ingly prosperous,  although  a  change  for  the  worse  appears  to  have  com- 
menced before  the  death  of  Jotham,  and  continued  through  the  reign  of 
Ahaz,  bringing  the  state  to  the  very  verge  of  ruin,  from  which  it  was  not 
restored  to  a  prosperous  condition  until  long  after  the  accession  of  Hezekiah. 
During  this  period  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  had  flourished 
greatly  under  Jeroboam  II.,  for  many  years  contemporary  with  Uzziah, 
passed  through  the  hands  of  a  succession  of  usurpers,  and  was  at  length 
overthrown  by  the  Assyrians,  in  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign  over 
Judah. 

Among  the  neighbouring  powers,  with  whom  Israel  was  more  or  less 
engaged  in  conflict  during  these  four  reigns,  the  most .  important  were  Da 
mascene  Syria,  Moab,  Edom,  and  the  Philistines,  who  although  resident 
within  the  allotted  bounds  of  Judah,  still  endeavoured  to  maintain  their  posi- 
tion as  an  independent  and  a  hostile  nation.  But  the  foreign  powers  which 
chiefly  influenced  the  condition  of  south-western  Asia  during  this  period, 
were  the  two  great  empires  of  Assyria  in  the  east,  and  Egypt  in  the  south- 
west. By  a  rapid  succession  of  important  conquests,  the  former  had  sud- 
denly acquired  a  magnitude  and  strength  which  it  had  not  possessed  for 
ages,  if  at  all.  Egypt  had  been  subdued,  at  least  in  part,  by  Ethiopia  ; 
but  this  very  event,  by  combining  the  forces  of  two  great  nations,  had  given 
unexampled  strength  to  the  Ethiopian  dynasty  in  Upper  Egypt.  The 
mutual  jealousy  and  emulation  between  this  state  and  Assyria,  naturally 
tended  to  make  Palestine,  which  lay  between  them,  a  theatre  of  war,  at 
least  at  intervals,  for  many  years.  It  also  led  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah 
to  take  part  in  the  contentions  of  these  two  great  powers,  and  to  secure 
themselves  by  uniting,  sometimes  with  Egypt  against  Assyria,  sometimes 
with  Assyria  against  Egypt.  It  was  this  inconstant  policy  that  hastened 
the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  exposed  that  of  Judah 
to  imminent  peril.  Against  this  policy  the  prophets,  and  especially  Isaiah, 
were  commissioned   to  remonstrate,   not   only   as   unworthy   in   itself,  but 


: 


xxn  INTRODUCTION. 

as  implying  a  distrust  of  God's  protection,  and  indifference  to  the  fun- 
damental law  of  the  theocracy.  The  Babylonian  monarchy,  as  Havernick 
has  clearly  proved,  began  to  gather  strength  before  the  end  of  this  period, 
but  was  less  conspicuous,  because  not  yet  permanently  independent  of  As- 
syria. 

The  two  most  remarkable  conjunctures  in  the  history  of  Judah  during 
Isaiah's  ministry,  are,  the  invasion  by  the  combined  force  of  Syria  and  Israel, 
in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  followed  by  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  and  the  Assyrian  invasion  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah,  ending 
in  the  miraculous  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army,  and  his  own  ignomin- 
ious flight.  The  historical  interest  of  this  important  period  is  further  height- 
ened by  the  fact,  that  two  of  the  most  noted  eras  in  chronology  fall  within 
it,  viz.  the  era  of  Nabonassar,  and  that  computed  from  the  building  of 
Rome. 

The  length  of  Isaiah's  public  ministry  is  doubtful.  The  aggregate  du- 
ration of  the  four  reigns  mentioned  in  the  title  is  above  one  hundred  and 
twelve  years  ;  but  it  is  not  said  that  he  prophesied  throughout  the  whole 
reign,  either  of  Uzziah  or  Hezekiah.  Some,  it  is  true,  have  inferred  that  his 
ministry  was  coextensive  with  the  whole  reign  of  Uzziah,  because  he  is  said 
to  have  written  the  history  of  that  prince  (2  Chron.  26  :  22),  which  he 
surely  might  have  done  without  being  strictly  his  contemporary,  just  as  he 
may  have  written  that  of  Hezekiah  to  a  certain  date  (2  Chron.  32  :  32), 
and  yet  have  died  before  him.  Neither  of  these  incidental  statements  can 
be  understood  as  throwing  any  light  upon  the  question  of  chronology.  Most 
writers,  both  among  the  Jews  and  Christians,  understand  the  first  verse  of 
the  sixth  chapter  as  determining  the  year  of  king  Uzziah's  death  to  be  the 
first  of  Isaiah's  public  ministry.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers,  who  adopt 
this  supposition,  at  the  same  time  understand  Uzziah's  death  to  mean  his  civil 
death,  occasioned  by  the  leprosy  with  which  he  was  smitten  in  the  twenty- 
fifth  year  of  his  reign,  for  his  sacrilegious  invasion  of  the  house  of  God,  so 
that  he  dwelt  in  a  separate  house  until  his  death.  There  seems  to  be  no 
sufficient  ground  for  this  explanation  of  the  language,  or  for  the  alleged  co- 
incidence of  the  event  with  the  twenty-fifth  year  of  Uzziah's  reign,  any  more 
than  for  the  notion  of  the  oriental  Christians,  that  Uzziah  was  deprived  of 
the  prophetic  office,  for  his  sin  in  not  withstanding  Uzziah,  and  after  twenty- 
eight  years  of  silence  was  restored  in  the  year  of  that  king's  death,  a  fan- 
ciful interpretation  of  the  facts  recorded  in  chap.  vi.  The  modem  writers 
are  agreed  in  understanding  the  expression  literally,  and  in  connecting  the 
last  year  of  Uzziah's  life  with  the  first  year  of  Isaiah's  ministry.  It  is  by  no 
means  certain,  as  we  shall  see  below,  that  the  sixth  chapter  is  descriptive  of 
Isaiah's  inauguration  into  office,  still  less  that  it  was  written  before  any  of 
the  others.     But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  chronological  hypothesis  just 


INTRODUCTION.  xxin 

stated  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  fact  of  its  removing  all  objections  to 
the  truth  of  the  inscription  (chap.  1:1)  founded  on  the  extreme  longevity 
which  it  would  otherwise  ascribe  to  the  prophet,  by  enabling  us  at  once  to 
deduct  half  a  century.  If  we  reckon  from  the  last  year  of  Uzziah  to  the 
fourteenth  of  Hezekiah,  the  last  in  which  we  find  any  certain  historical 
traces  of  Isaiah,  we  obtain  as  the  minimum  of  his  prophetic  ministry  a  pe- 
riod of  forty-seven  years,  and  this,  supposing  that  he  entered  on  it  even  at 
the  age  of  thirty,  would  leave  him  at  his  death  less  than  eighty  years  old. 
And  even  if  it  be  assumed  that  he  survived  Hezekiah,  and  continued  some 
years  under  his  successor,  the  length  of  his  life  will  after  all  be  far  less  than 
that  of  Jehoiada  the  High  Priest  who  died  in  the  reign  of  Joash  at  the  age 
of  130  years.     (2  Chron.  24 :  15.) 

The  Jews  have  a  positive  tradition  that  he  did  die  in  the  reign  of  Ma- 
nasseh,  and  as  a  victim  of  the  bloody  persecutions  by  which  that  king  is 
said  to  have  rilled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood  from  one  end  to  the  other. 
(2  Kings  21  :  16.)  Some  accounts  go  so  far  as  to  give  the  pretext  upon 
which  the  murder  was  committed,  namely,  that  of  discrepance  between 
Isaiah's  teaching  and  the  law  of  Moses,  as  well  as  the  precise  form  of  his 
martyrdom  by  being  sawn  asunder,  some  say  in  the  body  of  a  tree,  which 
had  opened  to  receive  him.  The  substantial  part  of  this  tradition  is  re- 
ceived as  true  by  several  of  the  Fathers,  who  suppose  it  to  be  clearly 
alluded  to  ioHeb.  1  ljj£7.  It  has  also  found  favour  among  many  modern 
writers,  on  the  ground  of  its  intrinsic  credibility,  and  the  antiquity  of  the 
tradition.  Hengstenberg  assents  to  it  moreover  on  the  ground  that  it  enables 
us  more  easily  to  account  for  the  peculiar  features  of  the  later  prophecies 
(ch.  40 — 66),  by  supposing  them  to  have  been  written  in  the  days  of  Ma- 
nasseh,  in  the  old  age  of  the  prophet,  and  after  his  retirement  from  active 
life.  Havernick,  on  the  other  hand,  rejects  the  tradition,  first,  on  the  gene- 
ral ground  that  fabulous  accounts  are  especially  abundant  in  the  Jewish 
martyrology,  and  then  on  the  special  ground,  that  this  assumption  leaves 
us  unable  to  account  for  the  omission  of  Manasseh's  name  in  the  inscription 
of  the  book,  without  admitting  that  the  title  may  have  been  prefixed  to  a 
partial  collection  of  Isaiah's  prophecies,  or  by  the  hand  of  a  later  writer, 
which  he  holds  to  be  unauthorized  and  dangerous  concessions.  To  the 
suggestion  that  Manasseh  may  have  been  omitted  because  under  him  Isaiah 
had  ceased  to  appear  in  public  as  a  prophet  and  employed  himself  in  writ- 
ing, it  is  answered  that  if  Uzziah  is  distinctly  mentioned  simply  because 
Isaiah  was  inducted  into  office  at  the  close  of  his  long  reign,  he  could 
scarcely  have  omitted  Manasseh  under  whom  so  large  a  proportion  of  his 
prophecies  were  written,  if  not  publicly  delivered.  In  weighing  the  argu- 
ments of  Havernick,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  his  hypothesis  compels 
him  to  regard  ch.  37  :  38  as  later  than  the  times  of  Isaiah,  simply  because 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION. 

the  event  there  recorded  must  have  taken  place  in  the  reign  of  Manasseb, 
This  fact,  together  with  the  insufficiency  of  his  objections  to  the  contrary 
hypothesis,  may  at  least  dispose  us  to  abstain  from  such  a  positive  decision 
of  the  question  as  would  cut  us  off  from  the  assumption  of  a  longer  term  of 
public  service,  however  probable  on  other  grounds,  and  however  necessary 
to  the  full  solution  of  questions  which  may  afterwards  present  themselves 
during  the  process  of  interpretation.  With  this  proviso,  we  may  safely  leave 
the  precise  chronological  question,  as  the  Bible  haves  it,  undetermined. 

From  the  references,  which  have  been  already  quoted,  to  the  historical 
writings  of  Isaiah,  some  have  inferred  that  he  was  an  official  historiographer, 
in  which  capacity  the  older  prophets  seem  to  have  acted,  as  appears  from 
the  canonical  insertion  of  such  books  as  those  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel, 
and  Kings,  among  the  Prophets.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose,  however, 
that  Isaiah  held  any  secular  office  of  the  kind,  distinct  from  his  prophetic 
ministry.  Nor  is  it  clear  in  what  sense  the  citation  of  Isaiah  by  the  Chron- 
icles as  a  historical  authority  should  be  understood.  The  reference  may  be 
simply  to  the  historical  portions  of  his  book,  or  to  the  corresponding  passages 
of  Second  Kings,  of  which,  in  strict  discharge  of  his  official  functions,  he  may 
well  have  been  the  author.  That  the  books  referred  to  were  more  copious 
histories  or  annals,  of  which  only  summaries  or  fragments  are  now  extant,  is 
a  supposition  which,  however  credible  or  even  plausible  it  may  be  in  itself, 
is  not  susceptible  of  demonstration.  The  question  as  to  the  identity  and 
fate  of  these  historical  writings  is  of  no  importance  to  the  exegesis  of  the 
book  before  us.  The  books  still  extant  under  the  name  of  the  Vision  and 
Ascension  of  Isaiah  are  universally  admitted  to  be  spurious  and  apocryphal. 
Our  attention  will  therefore  be  exclusively  confined  to  the  canonical  Isaiah. 

This  book  not  only  forms  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon  as  far  as 
we  can  trace  it  back,  but  has  held  its  place  there  without  any  change  of 
form,  size,  or  contents,  of  which  the  least  external  evidence  can  be  adduced. 
The  allusions  to  this  Prophet,  and  the  imitations  of  him,  in  the  later  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  are  not  confined  to  any  one  part  of  the  book  or  any 
single  class  of  passages.  The  apocryphal  writers  who  make  mention  of  it, 
use  no  expressions  which  imply  that  it  was  not  already  long  complete  in  its 
present  form  and  size.  The  same  thing  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  numer- 
ous citations  of  this  book  in  the  New  Testament.  Without  going  here  into 
minute  details,  a  correct  idea  of  the  general  fact  may  be  conveyed  by  simply 
stating,  that  of  the  sixty-six  chapters  of  Isaiah,  as  divided  in  our  modern 
Bibles,  forty-seven  are  commonly  supposed  to  be  directly  quoted  or  dis- 
tinctly alluded  to,  and  some  of  them  repeatedly.  The  same  thing  may  be 
illustrated  clearly  on  a  smaller  scale  by  stating,  that  in  the  twenty-one  cases 
where  Isaiah  is  expressly  named  in  the  New  Testament,  the  quotations  are 
drawn  from  the  first,  sixth,  eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  eleventh,  twenty-ninth, 


INTRODUCTION.  xxv 

fortieth,  forty-second,  fifty-third,  sixty-first,  and  sixty-fifth  chapters  of  the 
book  before  us.  These  facts,  together  with  the  absence  of  all  countervail- 
ing evidence,  show  clearly  that  the  Book  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah  (Luke  4:17) 
known  and  quoted  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  was,  as  a  whole,  identical 
with  that  which  we  have  under  the  same  name.  We  find  accordingly  a 
long  unbroken  series  of  interpreters,  Jewish  and  Christian,  through  a  course 
of  ages,  not  only  acquiescing  in  this  general  statement,  but  regarding  all  the 
passages  and  parts,  of  which  the  book  consists,  as  clearly  and  unquestionably 
genuine.  This  appears  for  the  most  part,  it  is  true,  not  as  the  result  of  any 
positive  reasoning  or  investigation,  but  as  a  negative  assumption,  resting  on 
the  want  of  any  proof  or  even  ground  of  suspicion  to  the  contrary.  Hence 
it  is  that  in  the  older  writers  on  Isaiah,  even  down  to  the  middle  ol  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  place  now  occupied  by  criticism,  in  the  modern  sense, 
is  wholly  blank.  No  one  of  course  thought  it  necessary  to  defend  what  had 
never  been  attacked,  or  to  demonstrate  what  had  never  been  disputed. 

This   neglect  of  critical  investigation   and  discussion,  although   easily 
accounted  for,  as  we  have  seen,  led  to  a  violent  reaction  towards  the  opposite 
extreme,  as  soon  as  the  first  impulse  had  been  given  to  that  kind  of  learned 
speculation.     The  critical  processes  employed,  with  paradoxical  assurance, 
on  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics,  by  the  school  of  Bentley,  were  transferred 
to  Scripture,  and  applied  not  only  to  particular  expressions,  but  to  whole 
passages  and  even  books.     That  this  new  method  would  be  early  carried  to 
excess,  was  not  only  to  be  apprehended  as  a  possible  contingency,  but  con- 
fidently looked  for  as  a  natural  and  even  unavoidable  result.    The  causes  which 
facilitate  inventions  and  discoveries  tend  also  to  exaggerate  their  value.     Of 
this  general   truth  we  have  abundant  illustration  without  going  beyond  the 
field  of  biblical  learning.     The  supposed  discovery  that  Buxtorf  and  the 
Rabbins  had  attached  too  much  importance  to  the  masoretic  pointing,  led 
Cappellus,   Houbigant,  and  Lowth,  to  reject  it   altogether — not  only  its 
authority  but  its  assistance — and  to  make  the  Hebrew  text  a  nose  of  wax 
between  the  fingers  of  an  arbitrary  and  capricious  criticism.     The  discovery 
that  sufficient  use  had  never  yet  been  made  of  the  analogy  of  Arabic  in  He- 
brew lexicography,  led  Schultens  and  his  school  to  an  extreme  which  seemed 
to  threaten  a  transfusion  of  the  spirit  of  one  language  into  the  exhausted  ves- 
sels of  another.     In  like  manner,  the  idea  that  the  Hebrew  text  had  been  too 
uncritically  handled,  seems  at  first  to  have  been  wholly  unaccompanied  by 
any  apprehension  that  the  process  of  correction  could  be  either  misapplied 
or  pushed  so  far  as  to  defeat  itself.     In  all  such  cases  the  first  movements 
must  be  tentative.    The  primary  object  is  to  ascertain  what  can  be  done.    In 
settling  this  point,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  provisionally  more  than  is  ex- 
pected to  abide  the  test  of  final  and  decisive  experiment.     The  writers  who 
originally  undertook  to  separate  the  genuine  and  spurious  portions  of  Isaiah, 

B 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION. 

acted  of  course  on  the  presumption,  that  any  part  might  prove  unsound,  and 
therefore  set  no  bounds  to  their  avidity  for  textual  reforms  and  innovations. 
The  natural  result  was  a  grotesque  disguise  and  mutilation  of  the  book  by 
means  of  numberless  erasures,  transpositions,  combinations,  gratuitous  assump- 
tions of  imaginary  authors,  two  or  more  of  whom  were  often  thought  to  be 
identified  within  the  bounds  of  one  connected  passage. 

Particular  examples  of  this  critical  mania,  as  displayed  by  Koppe,  Eieh- 
horn,  Bertholdt,  and  others,  will  be  given  hereafter  in  the  exposition.  What 
has  been  here  said  in  the  general  will  suffice  to  explain  the  fact  that  these 
extravagant  results,  and  the  confusion  into  which  they  threw  the  whole  subject 
of  interpretation,  soon  produced  a  new  reaction.  Rosenmuller,  DeWette,  and 
especially  Gesenius,  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  representatives  of  a  more 
moderate  and  later  school,  have  no  hesitation  in  expressing  their  contempt  for 
the  empirical  and  slashing  criticism  of  their  predecessors,  and,  as  a  proof  of 
their  sincerity,  assert  the  integrity  and  unity  of  many  passages  which  Eichhorn 
and  his  fellows  had  most  wantonly  dismembered.  This  is  undoubtedly  a 
retrograde  movement  in  the  right  direction,  and  as  far  as  it  goes  has  had  a 
salutary  influence,  by  making  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text  something 
more  than  idle  guess-work  or  fantastic  child's  play.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
not  to  be  dissembled  that  the  ground  assumed  by  these  distinguished  writers 
is  itself,  to  use  a  favourite  expression  of  their  own,  unkriiisch  and  unwissen- 
schaftlich,  i.  e.  neither  critical  nor  scientific.  The  ground  of  this  charge  is 
that  their  own  mode  of  critical  procedure  differs  from  that  which  they  repu- 
diate and  laugh  at,  only  in  degree,  i.  e.  in  the  extent  to  which  it  is  applied. 
They  expunge,  transpose,  and  imagine  less ;  but  still  they  do  all  three,  and 
on  precisely  the  same  principles.  They  mark  out  no  new  method,  they 
establish  no  new  standard,  but  are  simply  the  moderate  party  of  the  same 
school  which  they  represent  as  antiquirt  and  exploded. 

The  consciousness  of  this  defect  betrays  itself  occasionally  in  the  naivete 
with  which  Gesenius  and  DeWette  appeal  to  their  critical  feeling  as  the 
ultimate  ground  of  their  decisions.  The  real  principle  of  these  decisions  is 
identical  with  that  assumed  by  Eichhorn  and  his  school,  to  wit,  that  where 
there  is  a  colourable  pretext  or  the  faintest  probability  in  favour  of  a  change, 
it  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  always  provided  that  it  does  not  shock  the 
critical  Gefuhl  of  the  performer,  a  proviso  which  experience  has  proved  to 
be  sufficient  to  prevent  all  inconveniences  that  might  arise  from  a  too  rigor- 
ous construction  of  the  rule.  If,  for  example,  after  three-fourths  of  a  sen- 
tence or  a  passage  have  been  sacrificed  because  they  may  by  possibility  be 
spurious,  it  is  found  convenient  to  retain  the  fourth,  for  any  exegetical  pur- 
pose or  to  prove  another  point,  it  is  effected  without  scruple  or  delay  by 
a  response  of  the  Gefuhl  in  its  favour.  In  this  convenient  process,  the 
TiQmrov  ipevdog  of  the  radical  reformers,  as  the  earlier  critics  may  be  justly 


INTRODUCTION.  xxvn 

called,  if  not  avowed  in  theory,  is  still  held  fast  in  practice,  viz.  the  doctrine 
that  the  general  presumption  is  against  the  truth  and  authenticity  of  every 
thing  traditional  or  ancient,  and  in  favour  of  whatever  can  by  any  means  be 
substituted  for  it.  The  difference  between  this  and  the  old-fashioned  criticism 
seems  to  be  the  same  as  that  between  the  principle  of  English  jurisprudence, 
that  a  person  accused  is  to  be  reckoned  innocent  until  he  is  proved  guilty, 
and  the  rule  adopted  in  the  criminal  proceedings  of  some  other  nations,  that 
he  ought  to  be  held  guilty  till  he  proves  his  innocence.  A  fundamental 
maxim  of  this  whole  school  of  criticism,  upper  and  lower,  first  and  last, 
extreme  and  moderate,  is  this,  that  what  is  possible  is  pr.obable  and  may  be 
held  as  certain  if  it  suits  the  convenience  of  the  critic;  in- other  words, 
"  things  must  be  as  they  may." 

Another  proof  that  this  whole  system  is  uncritical,  or  destitute  of  any 
settled  principle,  distinct  from  that  of  the  exploded  method  which  it  super- 
sedes, is  furnished  by  the  absence  of  consistency  and  unity  in  its  results.  In 
one  important  point,  these  writers,  it  is  true,  display  a  singular  agreement. 
This  is  their  unanimous  rejection  of  the  twenty-seven  chapters  at  the  end  of 
the  collection,  as  the  product  of  a  later  age ;  a  unanimity  arising  neither 
from  the  clearness  of  the  case  nor  from  any  real  unity  of  principle  among 
the  critics  who  exhibit  it,  but  simply  from  the  fact,  now  universally  admitted, 
that  these  chapters  form  a  continuous  unbroken  composition,  so  that  in  order 
to  be  rid  of  any  one  part,  it  is  requisite  to  sacrifice  the  whole.  The  parti- 
cular grounds  of  this  rejection  will  be  stated  and  examined  in  a  special  intro- 
duction to  that  portion  of  Isaiah.  The  comparison  about  to  be  made  here 
will  be  restricted  to  the  remainder  of  the  book,  with  the  exception  of  the 
four  historical  chapters  which  connect  the  two  divisions  (ch.  xxxvi-xxxix), 
and  which  have  usually  shared  the  same  fate  with  the  twenty-seven. 

The  earliest  chapters  are  precisely  those  respecting  which  these  critics 
are  the  least  divided.  It  is  commonly  agreed  among  them  that  the  six  first 
are  genuine  productions  of  Isaiah,  to  which  it  can  hardly  be  considered  an 
exception,  that  ch.  2 :  2-4  is  supposed  by  many  to  be  still  more  ancient. 
The  only  observable  dissent  from  this  general  judgment  seems  to  be  the 
paradoxical  opinion  of  the  Dutch  writer  Roorda,  that  ch.  2 :  2-4  is  the  only 
portion  written  by  Isaiah,  and  that  all  the  rest  of  the  first  five  chapters  is 
the  work  of  Micah  !  Ch.  7  :  1-16  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  as  probably  not 
the  composition  of  Isaiah,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  third  person.  This  opi- 
nion is  refuted  by  Hitzig  and  repudiated  by  the  later  writers.  Koppe's  idea 
that  the  twelfth  chapter  is  a  hymn  of  later  date,  after  being  rejected  by  Ge- 
senius, and  revived  by  Ewald,  has  again  been  set  aside  by  Umbreit.  The 
genuineness  of  ch,  13  and  ch.  14 :  1-23  is  more  unanimously  called  in 
question,  on  account  of  its  resemblance  to  ch.  40-66,  which  this  whole  class 
of  critics~set  aside  as  spurious.     Ch.  15  and  16  are  ascribed  by  Koppe  and 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION. 

Bertholdt   to  Jeremiah  ;  by  Ewald  and  Umbreit  to  an  unknown  prophet 
older  than  Isaiah  ;  by  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and  Knobel  to  Jonah  ;  by  Hende- 
werk  to  Isaiah  himself.     Eichhorn  rejects  the  nineteenth  chapter;  Gesenius 
calls  in   question   the  genuineness  of  vs.  18-20;  Koppe  denies  that  of  vs. 
18-25  ;   Hitzig  regards  vs.  16-25  as  a  fabrication  of  the  Jewish  priest  Oni- 
as ;  while  Rosenmiiller,   Hendewerk,  Ewald   and   Umbreit,   vindicate  the 
whole  as  a  genuine  production  of  Isaiah.     The  first  ten  verses  of  the  twen- 
ty-first chapter  are  rejected  on  the  ground  of  their  resemblance  to  the  thir- 
teenth and  fourteenth.     Ewald  ascribes  both  to  a  single  author;  Hitzio- 
denies  that  they  can  be  from  the  same  hand.     Ewald  makes  the  prophecy 
in  ch.  21  the- earlier;   Hitzig  proves  it  to  be  later.      Koppe,  Paulus,  Eich- 
horn, and  Rosenmiiller,  look  upon  it  as  a  vaticinium  ex  eventu ;  Gesenius, 
Ewald,  and  the  other  later  writers  as  a  real  prophecy.     The  twenty-third 
chapter  is  ascribed  by  Movers  to  Jeremiah  ;  by  Eichhorn  and  Rosenmiiller  to 
an  unknown  writer  later  than  Isaiah  ;  by  Gesenius  and  DeWette  to  Isaiah 
himself;  by  Ewald  to  a  younger  contemporary  and  disciple  of  the  prophet. 
The  continuous   prophecy  contained  in  ch.  24-27  Knobel  shows  to  have 
been  written  in  Palestine  about  the  beginning  of  the  Babylonish  exile  ;  Ge- 
senius, in  Babylon  towards  the  end  of  the  captivity,  and  by  the  author  of 
ch.  40-66  ;  Umbreit,  at  the  same  time,  but  by  a  different  author;  Gram- 
berg,  after  the  return  from  exile  ;  Ewald,  just  before  the  invasion  of  Egypt 
by  Cambyses  ;  Vatke,  in  the  period  of  the   Maccabees  ;  Hitzig,  in  Assyria 
just  before  the  fall  of  Nineveh  ;  while  Rosenmiiller,  in  the  last  editions  of 
his  Scholia,  ascribes  it    to   Isaiah    himself.     Ch.  28-33  are  supposed  by 
Koppe   to   contain    many  distinct   prophecies  of  different  authors,  and  by 
Hitzig  several  successive  compositions  of  one  and  the  same  author ;  while 
most  other  writers  consider  them   as   forming  a  continuous  whole.     This  is 
regarded  by  Gesenius   and  Hitzig,  notwithstanding  the  objections  of  pre- 
ceding critics,  as  a  genuine  production   of  Isaiah  ;  but  Ewald  doubts  whe- 
ther it  may  not  be  the  work  of  a  disciple.     Most  of  the  writers  of  this 
school  join  ch.  34  and  35  together,  as  an  unbroken  context ;  but  Hitzig  no 
less  confidently  puts  them  asunder.     Rosenmiiller,  DeWette,   and  others, 
set  these  chapters  down  as   evidently  written  by  the  author  of  ch.  40-66, 
while  Ewald  on  the  other  hand   maintains  that  this  identity  is  disproved  by 
a  difference  of  style  and  diction. 

No  attempt  has  here  been  made  to  detail  the  grounds  of  these  conflicting 
judgments,  much  less  to  decide  between  them.  This  will  be  done,  so  far 
as  it  seems  necessary,  in  the  exposition,  and  particularly  in  the  introductions 
to  the  several  chapters.  The  object  aimed  at  in  the  foregoing  statement  is 
to  show,  that  no  additional  security  or  certainty  has  been  imparted  to  the 
criticism  of  the  text  by  these  empirical  conjectures,  and  to  confirm  the  pre- 
vious assertion  that  they  rest  on   no  determinate  intelligible  principle  or 


INTRODUCTION.  xxix 

standard  of  comparison.  A  further  confirmation  of  the  same  position  is 
afforded  by  the  tests  of  genuineness  and  antiquity,  explicitly  asserted  and 
applied  by  the  writers  of  this  school.  A  more  correct  expression  would 
perhaps  be  tests  of  spuriousness  and  later  origin  ;  for,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  the  use  of  a  criterion,  in  the  hands  of  these  critics,  is  seldom  to  estab- 
lish or  confirm,  but  almost  always  to  discredit  what  has  commonly  been 
looked  upon  as  genuine. 

One  of  the  surest  proofs  of  spuriousness,  according  to  the  theory  and 
practice  of  this  school,  is  the  occurrence  of  idioms  and  words  belonging  to 
a  period  of  Hebrew  composition  later  than  the  days  of  Isaiah.  This 
method  of  discrimination,  however  unobjectionable  in  itself,  is  nevertheless 
often  so  employed  as  to  be  altogether  violent  and  arbitrary  in  its  application. 
This  is  effected,  first,  by  exaggerating,  in  the  general,  the  real  difference  be- 
tween the  older  and  the  later  writings,  and  the  practical  facility  of  recognising 
the  peculiar  style  of  either.  Conclusions  which  have  properly  been  drawn, 
in  one  case,  from  a  variety  of  premises,  including  the  assumption  of  the  date 
as  a  fact  already  known,  are  most  unreasonably  drawn  in  others  from  a 
single  element  or  item  of  the  same  proof  in  default  of  all  the  rest.  This 
kind  of  sophistry  is  more  delusive  in  the  case  of  Hebrew  than  of  Greek  or 
Latin  criticism,  partly  because  we  have  fewer  data  upon  which  to  form  a 
judgment,  partly  because  peculiar  causes  kept  the  written  Hebrew  more 
unchanged  than  other  languages  within  a  given  period,  and  tended  to  oblite- 
rate in  some  degree  the  usual  distinctive  marks  of  earlier  or  later  date.  This 
is  particularly  true  if  we  assume,  as  there  are  some  strong  grounds  for  doing, 
that  the  whole  ancient  literature  of  the  Hebrews  was  contained  in  the  canon 
of  their  scriptures,  so  that  later  writings  were  continually  formed  upon  a  few 
exclusive  models.  But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  influence  exerted  by 
the  books  of  Moses  on  the  style  and  language  of  succeeding  writers  was 
immeasurably  greater  than  in  any  other  case  at  all  analogous. 

Besides  this  general  and  theoretical  exaggeration  of  the  difference  be- 
tween the  older  and  the  later  Hebrew,  there  is  also  chargeable  upon  these 
critics  an  habitual  proneness  to  lose  sight  of  the  distinction  between  what  is 
really  peculiar  to  the  later  books,  or  to  the  times  in  which  they  were  com- 
posed, and  that  which  after  all,  on  any  supposition,  must  be  common  to  the 
different  periods.  That  there  must  be  a  common  stock  of  this  kind  is  self- 
evident  ;  and  that  it  must  be  very  great  in  comparison  with  that  which  is 
peculiar  and  distinctive,  is  as  fully  established  by  the  facts  of  this  case  and 
the  analogy  of  others  like  it,  as  any  maxim  of  comparative  philology.  And 
yet  some  German  critics  of  the  modern  school,  although  they  do  not  venture 
to  avow  the  principle,  proceed  in  practice  just  as  if  they  held  the  use  of  an 
expression  by  a  later  writer  to  be  in  itself  exclusive  of  its  use  by  one  of  a 
preceding  age.     And  even  when  they  do  profess   to  make  the  distinction 


xxx  INTRODUCTION. 

just  insisted  on,  they  often  make  it  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  or  prevent  its 
having  any  practical  effect,  by  confounding  archaisms  with  neologisms,  i.  e. 
mistaking  for  corruptions  of  a  later  age  forms  of  expression  which  have 
been  transmitted  from  the  earliest  period  in  the  dialect  of  common  life,  but 
are  only  occasionally  used  in  writing,  and  especially  in  poetry,  until  the 
language  ceases  to  be  spoken,  and  the  difference  of  learned  and  colloquial 
style  is  thereby  lost.  The  profounder  study  of  comparative  philology  in 
very  recent  times  has  shown  the  fallacy  of  many  such  objections  to  the 
antiquity  of  certain  passages,  and  at  the  same  time  shaken  the  authority  of 
similar  criticism  in  other  cases,  not  admitting  of  direct  refutation. 

The  bad  effect  of  these  fallacious  principles  of  criticism  is  often  aggra- 
vated by  a  want  of  consistency  and  fairness  in  their  application.  This  is 
especially  apparent  in  the  younger  German  writers  of  this  school,  who  often 
push  to  a  practical  extreme  the  theoretical  assumptions  of  their  more  dis- 
creet or  more  enlightened  teachers.  Even  where  this  is  unintentionally 
done,  it  argues  an  eagerness  to  prove  a  point,  or  to  sustain  a  foregone  con- 
clusion, not  very  likely  to  be  found  connected  with  a  high  degree  of  candour 
and  impartiality.  A  signal  illustration  of  this  critical  unfairness  is  the  practice 
of  evading  the  most  certain  indications  of  antiquity  by  noting  them  as  imi- 
tations of  a  later  writer.  Where  the  recent  date  of  the  composition  is 
already  certain,  the  existence  of  such  imitations  may  be  certain  also ;  but 
to  assume  them  in  the  very  process  of  determining  the  date,  is  little  short  of 
an  absurdity.  By  setting  down  whatever  can  be  found  in  other  later  books 
as  proof  of  recent  origin,  and  every  thing  which  cannot  as  a  studied  imitation 
of  antiquity,  the  oldest  writings  extant  may  be  proved  to  be  a  hundred  or  a 
thousand  years  younger  than  themselves.  Indeed  it  may  be  stated  as  a 
fatal  vice  of  this  whole  system,  that  it  either  proves  too  little  or  too  much, 
that  it  is  either  pushed  too  far  or  that  it  ought  to  be  pushed  further,  that  the 
limit  of  its  application  is  determined  by  no  principle  or  rule  but  the  conve- 
nience or  caprice  of  the  interpreter.  Stat  pro  ratione  voluntas.  The 
critical  process  is  too  generally  this,  that  where  the  admission  of  a  passage 
as  genuine  would  lead  to  consequences  undesirable  in  any  point  of  view, 
the  critic  fastens  upon  every  singularity  of  thought  or  language  as  a  ground 
of  suspicion,  and  the  most  unmeaning  trifles  by  accumulation  are  converted 
into  arguments  ;  whereas  in  other  cases  altogether  parallel,  except  that  there 
is  no  urgent  motive  for  discrediting  the  passage,  indications  equally  abundant 
and  conclusive  are  entirely  overlooked.  Sometimes  the  evidence  of  later 
date  is  found  exclusively  in  one  part  of  a  long  unbroken  context,  all  admitted 
to  be  written  by  the  same  hand,  though  the  critic  fails  to  see  that  this  ad- 
mission is  destructive  of  his  argument  so  far  as  it  is  founded  on  diversity  of 
language  as  a  test  of  age.  For  if  a  later  writer  can  be  so  unlike  himself, 
why  not  an  older  writer  also  ? 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

This  remark,  however,  is  applicable  rather  to  the  question  of  identity 
than  that  of  age.  For  a  favourite  process  of  the  modern  critics,  and  espe- 
cially of  some  below  the  highest  rank,  is  that  of  proving  a  negative,  by 
showing  that  a  passage  or  a  book  is  not  the  work  of  its  reputed  author,  with- 
out attempting  to  show  whose  it  is.  Some  of  the  means  employed  for  the 
attainment  of  this  end  might  seem  incredible,  as  serious  attempts  at  argu- 
ment, but  for  the  formal  gravity  with  which  they  are  employed.  Sometimes 
the  demonstration  is  effected  by  enumerating  forms  of  expression,  which 
occur  nowhere  else  in  the  undisputed  works  of  the  reputed  author,  and 
inferring  that  he  therefore  could  not  have  employed  them  in  the  case  under 
consideration.  The  first  absurdity  of  this  ratiocination  lies  in  the  very 
principle  assumed,  which  is,  in  fact  if  not  in  form,  that  whatever  any  writer 
has  said  once,  he  must,  as  a  general  rule,  have  said  again  if  not  repeatedly. 
Now  what  can  be  more  certain  or  notorious  than  the  fact  that  what  the 
greatest  writers  say  most  frequently,  is  that  which  is  least  characteristic, 
while  the  thoughts  and  expressions  which  are  most  admired,  quoted,  and 
remembered,  are  for  the  most  part  ana^  Xtyofteva,  things  which  could  only 
be  said  once,  which  would  not  bear  to  be  repeated,  by  themselves  or  others  ? 
What  would  be  thought  of  an  attempt  to  prove  the  Ars  Poetica  spurious,  on 
the  ground  that  the  words  exlex,  sesquipedalia,  cotis,  Htura,  quincunce,  and 
the  phrases  purpureus  p  annus,  ab  ovo,  lucidus  ordo,  callida  junctura,  norma 
loquendi,  in  medias  res,  incredulus  odi,  sagax  rerum,  ad  unguem,  vivas 
voces,  ore  rotundo,  decies  repetita,  laudator  temporis  acti,  the  simile  of  the 
mountain  and  the  mouse,  and  the  proverbial  saying,  occupet  extremum  scabies, 
occur  nowhere  else  in  the  writings  of  Horace  ?  But  this  case,  strong  as  it 
is,  affords  a  very  insufficient  illustration  of  the  theory  and  practice  of  the 
German  critics  now  in  question.  Not  content  with  the  assumption  of  a 
false  and  arbitrary  test  of  identity,  they  make  the  application  of  it  more 
unreasonable  still,  by  rejecting  every  proof  adduced  in  opposition  to  their 
doctrine,  as  itself  suspicious  or  unquestionably  spurious.  A  parallel  case 
would  be  that  of  a  critic  who,  on  being  reminded  that  the  phrase  ab  ovo  is 
used  in  the  same  sense  in  the  third  satire,  and  ad  unguem  in  the  first,  should 
set  the  argument  aside  by  referring  both  these  compositions  to  the  times 
of  Juvenal  or  Persius.  With  equal  justice  the  tenth  eclogue  of  Virgil 
might  be  taken  from  him,  by  first  rejecting  the  Georgics  and  the  last  ten  books 
of  the  iEneid  as  unquestionably  spurious,  and  then  enumerating  all  the 
single  words,  grammatical  constructions,  and  peculiar  idioms,  to  which  no 
perfect  counterparts  are  found  in  the  remainder  of  his  poems. 

But  besides  this  linguistical  method  of  discrediting  a  large  part  of  Isaiah 
as  unquestionably  not  his  composition,  there  is  another  process  used  for  the 
same  purpose,  which  may  be  entitled  the  rhetorical  argument,  consisting  in 
the  arbitrary  affirmation  that  the  style  of  certain  passages  is  too  prosaic,  the 


xxxn  INTRODUCTION. 

metaphors  too  much  confused,  the  rhythm  loo  harsh,  the  allusions  too  obscure, 
the  illustrations  too  familiar,  the  expression  too  inelegant,  to  be  imputed  to 
so  great  a  writer.  This  mode  of  criticism  is  pregnant  with  absurdities  pe- 
culiar to  itself.  In  the  first  place  may  be  stated  the  unreasonable  weight 
which  it  attaches  to  rhetorical  distinctions  in  general,  not  to  mention  the 
peculiar  stress  laid  on  the  technicalities  of  scholastic  rhetoric  in  particular. 
This  error  is  connected  with  a  false  hypothesis,  to  be  considered  afterwards, 
as  to  the  light  in  which  the  prophets  viewed  themselves  and  were  regarded 
by  their  readers.  If  they  aspired  to  be  nothing  more  than  orators  and  poets, 
then  rhetorical  considerations  would  of  course  be  paramount ;  but  if  they 
believed  themselves,  and  were  believed  by  others,  to  be  inspired  revealers  of 
the  will  of  God,  it  is  absurd  to  imagine  that  they  would  or  could  allow  the 
clear  and  strong  expression  of  that  will  to  be  controlled  by  mere  rhetorical 
punctilios. 

Another  flaw  in  this  critical  process  is  its  puerile  assumption  that  the 
prophets,  even  as  mere  orators  and  poets,  must  be  always  doing  their 
best ;  that  if  ever  striking,  they  must  strike  at  all  times;  that  if  ever  tender, 
they  must  always  melt  ;  that  if  they  ever  soar,  they  must  be  always  in  the 
clouds  ;  whereas  analogy  demonstrates  that  the  greatest  writers,  both  in 
prose  and  verse,  go  up  by  the  mountains  and  down  by  the  valleys,  or  in 
other  words,  exert  their  highest  faculties  at  intervals,  with  long  and  frequent 
seasons  of  repose,  while  poetasters  and  declaimers  prove  the  hollowness  of 
their  claims  by  a  painful  uniformity  of  tension  and  a  wearisome  monotony 
of  failure. 

A  third  defect  is  one  which  might  with  equal  justice  have  been  charged 
against  some  arguments  before  recited,  namely,  the  vague  and  indeterminate 
character  of  this  criterion,  as  evinced  by  the  diversity  of  its  results.  Not 
only  does  one  critic  censure  what  another  critic  of  the  same  school  leaves 
unnoticed  ;  but  the  same  thing  is  positively  represented  by  the  two  as  a 
beauty  and  a  deformity,  nay  more,  as  fatal  to  the  genuineness  of  a  passage, 
and  as  a  certain  demonstration  of  it.  It  may  seem  invidious  and  perhaps 
presumptuous  to  add,  that  this  unsafe  and  two-edged  instrument  could  scarcely 
be  intrusted  to  worse  hands  than  those  of  some  late  German  critics,  who 
with  all  their  erudition,  ingenuity,  and  show  of  philosophical  aesthetics,  are 
peculiarly  deficient  in  that  delicate  refinement  and  acute  sensibility  of  taste, 
which  a  less  profound  but  far  more  classical  and  liberal  training  has  im- 
parted even  to  inferior  scholars  of  some  other  nations,  and  especially  of 
England.  To  this  unfavourable  estimate  of  German  taste  and  literary  judg- 
ment there  are  eminent  exceptions,  even  in  the  ranks  of  theological  and 
biblical  learning ;  but  among  these  it  would  be  impossible  to  class  the  writers 
who  are  most  remarkable  for  an  unhesitating  reckless  use  of  the  rhetorical 
criterion  now  in  question.     On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  stated  as  a  curious 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxiu 

and  instructive  fact,  that  the  imputation  of  inelegance,  awkwardness,  obscu- 
rity, and  coarseness,  has  been  lavished  on  Isaiah  with  peculiar  prodigality 
by  those  interpreters  who  seem  to  be  most  open  to  the  charge  themselves, 
and  who,  in  the  very  act  of  passing  judgment  on  the  Prophet  or  his  writings 
as  devoid  of  taste  and  genius,  often  show  most  painfully  and  clearly  that 
their  circumscribed  professional  pursuits,  however  thorough  and  successful, 
have  been  insufficient  to  compensate  for  the  want  of  a  more  enlarged  and 
humanizing  culture. 

The  revulsion  of  feeling,  necessarily  occasioned  in  the  great  majority  of 
cultivated  minds,  by  these  rhetorical  attacks  upon  some  portions  of  Isaiah, 
with  a  view  to  prove  them  spurious,  must  be  greatly  aggravated  by  another 
argument  employed  for  the  same  purpose,  which  may  be  distinguished  from 
the  lexicographical,  grammatical,  and  rhetorical  tests  already  mentioned,  as 
the  ethical  or  moral  test.     This  consists  simply  in  accusing  certain  passages 
of  being  animated  by  a  narrow,  selfish,  mean,  and  sometimes  even  by  a  fierce, 
malignant,  cruel,  vindictive,  blood-thirsty  spirit,  wholly  foreign  from  Isaiah's 
character,  and  from  the  temper  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived.     Without  insist- 
ing on  the  arbitrary  difference  assumed  in  this  objection  to  exist  between 
certain  periods  of  the  sacred  history,  in  point  of  moral  elevation  and  enlarge- 
ment, let  it  be  observed  how  perfectly  factitious  and  imaginary  this  peculiar 
tone  of  the  disputed  passages  must  be,  when  it  has  failed  to  strike  the  most 
enlightened  readers  of  the  Prophet  for  a  course  of  ages.     This  is  a  question 
wholly  different  from   that  of  philological  or  even  rhetorical  distinctions, 
which  might  easily  escape  the  view  of  any  but  professional  and    critical 
readers,  and  be  first  discovered  by  the  searching  processes  of  modern  scru- 
tiny.    But  when  the  critic  passes  from  the  field  of  orthography  and  etymol- 
ogy to  that  of  morals,  he  is  stepping  out  of  darkness  into  sunshine,  from  the 
bench  to  the  bar,  from  the  position  of  a  judge  to  that  of  an  advocate,  who, 
far  from  being  able  to  decide  the  controversy  by  a  dictum,  has  to  plead  his 
cause  at  the  tribunal  of  a  multitude  of  trained  minds  and  enlightened  con- 
sciences.    The  want  of  familiar  and  devotional  acquaintance  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, on  the  part  of  many  learned  German  critics,  must  disable  them  from 
estimating  the  advantage  thus  enjoyed  by  Christian  readers,  whose  opinions 
have  been  formed  upon  the  Gospel,  and  who  certainly  would  be  the  first  to 
mark  any  real  inconsistency  between  it  and  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  prophets. 
To  such  spectators,  and  in  such  a  light,  there  is  something  almost  ludicrous 
in  the  solemnity  with  which  some  unbelievers  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible 
utter  sanctimonious  complaints  of  an  immoral  and  unhallowed  temper  in  those 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament  which  they,  for  reasons  afterwards  to  be  consid- 
ered, are  unwilling  to  acknowledge  as  authentic,  while   they  pass  by,  with 
discreet  indulgence,  indications  far  more  plausible  in  other  places.     If  it  be 
said,  that  these  immoral  tendencies  escape  the  ordinary  reader  on  account  of 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION. 

his  foregone  conclusion  that  the  whole  proceeds  from  God  and  therefore 
must  be  right ;  the  answer  is,  that  a  hypothesis,  which  thus  brings  all  the 
parts  of  an  extensive  varied  whole  into  agreement,  bears  upon  its  face  the 
clearest  marks  of  truth,  and  that  the  fact  alleged  affords  an  incidental  proof 
that  the  position  of  the  adverse  party,  which  compels  him  to  see  every  thing 
distorted  and  at  variance  with  itself,  must  be  a  false  one. 

This  last  suggestion  opens  a  new  view  of  the  whole  subject.  Thus  far 
the  question  has  been  stated  and  discussed  as  one  of  criticism  merely,  not  of 
hermeneutics  6v  of  doctrinal  belief,  with  a  view  to  show  that  even  on  his- 
torical and  literary  grounds,  the  modern  German  mode  of  dealing  with  the 
text  of  Isaiah,  and  of  settling  the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  its  several 
parts,  is  wholly  untenable,  because  capricious,  arbitrary,  inconsistent  with 
itself,  and  at  variance  with  analogy,  good  taste,  and  common  sense.  The 
reader  must,  however,  have  observed  that  in  exposing  the  caprices  of  these 
critics,  I  have  frequently  described  them  as  resorting  to  these  methods  only 
where  they  had  strong  reasons  for  desiring  to  discredit  a  particular  portion 
of  the  book,  at  least  so  far  as  to  dispute  its  antiquity.  It  will  now  be  proper 
to  explain  how  such  a  motive  can  be  supposed  to  exist,  the  rather  as  the 
neological  interpreters  of  Germany  are  often  praised  by  their  admirers,  on  the 
ground  that,  although  they  are  skeptical,  their  very  skepticism  renders  them 
impartial  and  gives  their  testimony  greater  weight,  in  every  case  except  where 
the  question  of  inspiration  is  directly  and  formally  at  issue.  The  practical 
effect  of  this  superficial  estimate  has  been  the  practice  of  adhering  servilely 
to  these  neologists  until  they  openly  deny  some  fundamental  doctrine  of  reli- 
gion, then  protesting  against  that  specific  error,  and  again  walking  closely 
in  their  footsteps,  till  another  opportunity  or  palpable  necessity  for  protesta- 
tion or  dissent  occurs.  Besides  the  want  of  harmony  and  unity  in  any 
course  of  criticism  or  exegesis  thus  conducted,  it  is  evident  that  such  a  mode 
of  dealing  with  a  system,  which  is  known  and  acknowledged  to  be  unsound  in 
principle,  must  lead  the  writer  and  the  reader  into  many  other  dangers  than  the 
few  which  are  upon  the  surface,  lncedis  per  ignes  swppositos  cineri  doloso. 
To  avoid  these  hidden  and  insidious  dangers,  it  is  neccessary  to  compare  the 
different  theories  of  criticism  and  interpretation,  not  in  their  formal  differ- 
ences merely,  but  in  their  intimate  connexion  with  diversities  of  fundamental 
principles  and  doctrinal  belief.  In  order  to  effect  this,  it  will  be  expedient 
to  consider  briefly  the  historical  progress  of  opinion  with  respect  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  exegesis,  as  we  have  already  traced  the  change  of  theory  and  prac- 
tice in  the  treatment  of  the  text.  These  two  important  parts  of  the  same 
great  subject  will  be  found  to  illustrate  and  complete  each  other. 

Isaiah  himself,  even  leaving  out  of  view  the  large  part  of  his  book  which 
a  capricious  criticism  has  called  in  question,  may  be  said  to  express  every 
where  his  own  belief  that  he  was  writing  under  an  extraordinary  influence, 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxv 

not  merely  human  but  divine.  This  is  at  least  the  prima  facie  view  which 
any  unsophisticated  reader  would  derive  from  a  simple  perusal  of  his  undis- 
puted writings.  However  mistaken  he  might  think  the  prophet,  in  asserting 
or  assuming  his  own  inspiration,  such  a  reader  could  scarcely  hesitate  to 
grant  that  he  believed  it  and  expected  it  to  be  believed  by  others.  In  one 
of  the  oldest  and  best  of  the  Jewish  Apocrypha  (Sirach  24:  25),  Isaiah  is 
called  the  great  and  faithful  prophet  who  foresaw  what  was  to  happen  till 
the  end  of  time.  Josephus  and  Philo  incidentally  bear  witness  to  his 
universal  recognition  by  their  countrymen  as  one  inspired  of  God. 

We  have  seen  already  that  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  cite  the  whole 
book  of  Isaiah  with  more  frequency  than  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    It  now  becomes  a  question  of  historical   interest  at  least,  in  what 
capacity  and  character  Isaiah   is  thus  quoted,  and  with  what  authority  he 
seems  to  be  invested  in  the   New  Testament.     The  simple  fact  that  he  is 
there  so  often  quoted,  when   connected  with  another  undisputed  fact,  to 
wit,  that  his  writings,  even   at   that  early  date,  held  a  conspicuous   place 
among  the   Sacred  Scriptures  (tega  yQctfi^tara,  yQaqial   aytai)   of  the  Jews, 
would  of  itself  create  a  strong  presumption   that  our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
recognised  his  inspiration  and  divine  authority.     We  are  not  left,  however, 
to  infer  this  incidentally  ;  for  it  is  proved  directly  by  the  frequent  combina- 
tion of  the  title  Prophet  with   the  name  Isaiah   (Matth.  3:  3.  4:  14.  8: 
17.  12 :  17.  Luke  3 :  4.  4  :  17.  John  1  :  23.  13 :  28.  Acts  8 :  28-30.  28 : 
25)  ;  by  the  repeated  statement  that  he  prophesied  or  spoke  by  inspiration 
(Mark  7  :  6.  Rom.  9 :  29)  ;  by  the  express  declaration  that  some  of  his  pre- 
dictions were  fulfilled  in  the  history  of  Christ  and  his  contemporaries  (Matth. 
3  :  3.  4 :  14.  8 :  17.  Acts  28 :  25)  ;  and  by  the  still  more  remarkable  state- 
ment that  Isaiah  saw  Christ  and  spoke  of  his  glory  (John  12  :  41).     These 
expressions  place  it  beyond  all  possibility  of  doubt  that  the  New  Testament 
describes  Isaiah  as  a  Prophet  in  the  strictest  and  the  highest  sense  inspired  of 
God.     This  is  alleged  here,  not  as  a  reason  for  our  own  belief,  but  simply 
as  a  well-attested  fact  in  the  history  of  the  interpretation. 

Coming  down  a  little  lower,  we  find  all  the  Christian  Fathers  taking  for 
granted  the  divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  Prophet,  and  regulating 
their  interpretation  of  his  book  accordingly.  But  not  content  with  thus 
acknowledging  his  right  to  a  place  among  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, they  ascribe  to  him  a  certain  pre-eminence  as  belonging  rather  to 
the  new  dispensation.  Eusebius  describes  him  as  the  great  and  wonderful 
prophet,  and  even  as  the  greatest  of  prophets.  According  to  Cyril,  he  is  at  once 
a  prophet  and  apostle  ;  according  to  Jerome,  not  so  much  a  prophet  as  an  evan- 
gelist. The  latter  elsewhere  represents  him  as  non  solum prophetam  sed  evan- 
gelistametapostolum,andh\sbookasnonprophetiamsedevangelium.  As  the  old 
Jewish  doctrine  upon  this  point  is  maintained  by  the  rabbinical  expounders  of 


*x*vi  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Middle  Ages,  it  may  be  affirmed  that  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
according  to  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  tradition,  represent  Isaiah  as  inspired. 

From  the  Fathers  this  doctrine  passed  without  change  into  the  Re- 
formed Church,  and  from  the  Talmudists  and.  Rabbins  to  the  modern 
Jews,  so  far  as  they  continue  to  adhere  to  their  religion.  Much  as  the 
Protestant  Church  has  been  divided  since  the  Reformation,  as  to  doctrine  in 
general,  as  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  in  particular,  and  even  with 
respect  to  the  right  method  of  interpreting  Isaiah,  all  schools  and  parties, 
until  after  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  held  fast  to  the  inspiration 
of  the  Prophet  as  a  fundamental  principle,  to  which  all  theories  and  all  exe- 
getical  results  must  be  accommodated.  Even  the  lax  Arminian  school  of 
Grotius  and  Le  Clerc,  however  much  disposed  to  soften  down  the  sharp 
points  and  asperities  of  orthodox  opinion,  upon  this  as  well  as  other  subjects, 
did  not  venture  to  disturb  the  old  foundation.  The  very  faults  and  errors, 
w7ith  which  the  stricter  theologians  charged  their  exegesis,  were  occasioned 
in  a  great  degree  by  their  attempt  to  reconcile  more  liberal  and  superficial 
views  of  the  Prophet's  meaning  with  the  indisputable  axiom  of  his  inspira- 
tion. That  a  secret  skeptical  misgiving  often  gave  complexion  to  their 
exegesis,  is  extremely  probable ;  but  it  is  still  true,  that  they  did  not  venture 
to  depart  from  the  traditional  opinion  of  the  whole  church  in  all  ages,  as  to 
the  canonical  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  book  before  us.  They 
sought  by  various  means  to  belittle  and  explain  away  the  natural  results  of 
this  great  principle  ;  but  with  the  principle  itself  they  either  did  not  wish  or 
did  not  dare  to  meddle. 

After  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  a  memorable  change  took 
place  in  Germany,  as  to  the  method  of  interpreting  Isaiah.  This  change 
was  closely  connected  with  the  one  already  mentioned,  in  relation  to  the 
criticism  of  the  text.  As  the  skeptical  criticism  of  the  classics  was  the 
model  upon  which  that  of  the  Hebrew  text  was  formed,  so  a  like  imitation 
of  the  classical  methods  of  interpretation  became  generally  current.  The 
favourite  idea  now  was,  that  the  Hebrew  books  were  to  be  treated  simply 
and  solely  as  remains  of  ancient  Jewish  literature,  and  placed,  if  not  upon  a 
level  with  the  Greek  and  Roman  books,  below  them,  as  the  products  of  a 
ruder  period  and  a  less  gifted  race.  This  affectation  was  soon  carried  out 
in  its  details  ad  nauseam.  Instead  of  prophecies,  and  psalms,  and  history, 
the  talk  was  now  of  poems,  odes,  orations,  and  mythology.  The  ecclesias- 
tical and  popular  estimate  of  the  books  as  sacred  went  for  nothing,  or  was 
laughed  at,  as  a  relic  of  an  antiquated  system.  This  change,  although 
apparently  confined  to  technicalities,  could  never  have  been' wrought  without 
a  deep  defection  from  the  ancient  faith,  as  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Under  the  pretext  of  exchanging  barbarism  for  refinement,  and  of 
putting  biblical  and  classical  pursuits  upon  a  footing  of  equality,  the  essential 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxvn 

distinction  between  literature  and  scripture  was  in  fact  abolished,  without 
any  visible  or  overt  violence,  by  simply  teaching  men  to  treat  them  and  to 
talk  of  them  without  discrimination. 

This  momentous  change  was  undesignedly  promoted  by  Lowth's 
ingenious  and  successful  effort  to  direct  attention  to  Isaiah's  character  and 
value  as  a  poet.  Believing  justly  that  the  exposition  of  the  Prophet's 
writings  had  been  hindered  and  perplexed  by  a  failure  to  appreciate  the 
figurative  dress  in  which  his  thoughts  were  clothed,  the  learned  and  accom- 
plished prelate  undertook  to  remedy  the  evil  by  presenting,  in  the  strongest 
light  and  in  extreme  relief,  this  single  aspect  of  Isaiah's  writings.  In 
attempting  this,  he  was  unconsciously  led  to  overcolour  and  exaggerate  the 
real  points  of  difference  between  the  ordinary  prose  of  history  or  legislation 
and  the  lively  elevated  prose  of  prophecy,  applying  to  the  latter  all  the  dis- 
tinctive terms  which  immemorial  usage  had  appropriated  to  the  strictly 
metrical  productions  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  poets.  This  error  led  to 
several  unfortunate  results,  some  of  which  will  be  considered  in  another 
place.  The  only  one  that  need  be  mentioned  here  is  the  apparent  counte- 
nance afforded  by  Lowth's  theories  and  phraseology  to  the  contemporary 
efforts  of  the  earlier  neologists  in  Germany  to  blot  out  the  distinction 
between  poetry  and  prophecy,  between  the  ideal  inspiration  of  the  Muses 
and  the  real  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  was  the  more  to  be 
regretted,  as  there  does  not  seem  to  be  the  slightest  reason  for  suspecting 
that  the  Bishop  had  departed  in  the  least  from  the  established  doctrine  of 
his  own  church  and  of  every  other,  with  respect  to  the  divine  authority 
and  origin  of  this  or  of  the  other  sacred  books.  That  Lowth,  by  his  un- 
warrantable changes  of  the  text,  and  his  exclusive  disproportionate  protrusion 
of  the  mere  poetical  element  in  scripture,  gave  an  impulse  to  a  spirit  of 
more  daring  innovation  in  succeeding  writers,  is  not  more  certain  than  the 
fact,  that  this  abuse  of  his  hypotheses,  or  rather  this  legitimate  deduction  of 
their  more  remote  but  unavoidable  results,  was  altogether  unforeseen.  In 
ably  and  honestly  attempting  to  correct  a  real  error,  and  to  make  good  an 
injurious  defect,  in  the  theory  and  practice  of  interpretation,  he  unwittingly 
afforded  a  new  instance  of  the  maxim,  that  the  remedy  may  possibly  be 
worse  than  the  disease. 

By  the  German  writers,  these  new  notions  were  soon  pushed  to  an 
extreme.  Besides  the  total  change  of  phraseology  already  mentioned,  some 
went  so  far  as  to  set  down  the  most  express  predictions  as  mere  poetical 
descriptions  of  events  already  past.  From  this  extreme  position,  occupied 
by  Eichhorn  and  some  others,  DeWette  and  Gesenius  receded,  as  they  did 
from  the  critical  extravagance  of  multiplying  authors  and  reducing  the 
ancient  prophecies  to  fragments.  They  admitted,  not  only  that  many  por- 
tions of  Isaiah  had  reference  to  events  still  future  when  he  wrote,  but  also 


xxxvin  INTRODUCTION. 

that  he  was  inspired,  reserving  to  themselves  the  right  of  putting  a  conven- 
ient sense  on  that  equivocal  expression.  Among  the  later  German  writers 
on  Isaiah,  there  is  a  marked  variety  of  tone,  as  to  the  light  in  which  the 
Prophet  is  to  be  regarded.  While  all,  in  general  terms,  acknowledge  his 
genius  and  the  literary  merit  of  his  writings,  some,  in  expounding  them, 
appear  to  vacillate  between  condescension  and  contempt.  Of  this  class 
Hitzig  is  perhaps  the  lowest ;  Knobel  and  Hendewerk  exhibit  the  same 
peculiarities  with  less  uniformity  and  in  a  less  degree.  Gesenius  treats  his 
subject  with  the  mingled  interest  and  indifference  of  an  antiquary  handling 
a  curious  and  valuable  relic  of  the  olden  time.  Ewald  rises  higher  in  his 
apparent  estimation  of  his  subject,  and  habitually  speaks  of  Isaiah  in  terms 
of  admiration  and  respect.  Umbreit  goes  still  further  in  the  same  direction, 
and  employs  expressions  which  would  seem  to  identify  him  fully  with  the 
orthodox  believing  school  of  criticism,  but  for  his  marked  agreement  with 
neology  in  one  particular,  about  to  be  stated. 

The  successive  writers  of  this  modern  school,  however  they  may  differ 
as  to  minor  points  among  themselves,  prove   their  identity  of  principle  by 
holding  that   there  cannot  be   distinct  prophetic  foresight  of  the  distant 
future.     This   doctrine  is  avowed  more  explicitly  by  some  (as  by  Hitzig 
and  Knobel)  than  by  others  (as  Gesenius  and  Ewald) ;  but  it  is  really  the 
ttqmtov  ipevdog  of  the  whole  school,  and  the  only  bond   of  unity  between 
them.     There  is  also  a  difference  in  the  application  of  the  general  rule  to 
specific  cases.     Where  the  obvious  exposition  of  a  passage  would  convert  it 
into  a  distinct  prediction,  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  usually  try  to  show  that  the 
words  really  relate   to  something  near  at  hand,  and  within  the  reach  of  a 
sagacious  human  foresight,  while  Ewald  and  Umbreit  in  the  same  case  choose 
rather  to  convert  it  into  a  vague  anticipation.     But  they  all  agree  in  this, 
that  where  the  prophecy   can  be    explained   away  in    neither    of    these 
methods,  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  certain  proof  of  later  date.     This  is  the 
real  ground,  on  which  ch.  xl-lxvi  are  referred  to   the  period  of  the  exile, 
when   the  conquests  of  Cyrus  and  the  fall  of  Babylon  might  be  foreseen 
without    a   special  revelation.     This   is    the   fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
modern  neological  interpreters,  the  foregone  conclusion,  to  which  all  exeget- 
ical  results  must  yield  or  be  accommodated,  and  in   support  of  which  the 
arbitrary  processes  before  described  must  be  employed  for  the  discovery  of 
arguments,  philological,  historical,  rhetorical  and  moral,  against  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  passage,  which  might  just  as  easily  be  used  in  other  cases, 
where  they  are  dispensed  with,  simply  because  they  are  not  needed  for  the 
purpose  of  destroying  an  explicit  proof  of  inspiration. 

From  this  description  of  the  neological  interpretation  there  are  two 
important  practical  deductions.  The  first  and  clearest  is,  that  all  conclu- 
sions founded,  or  necessarily  depending,  on  this   false  assumption,  must  of 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxix 

course  go  for  nothing  with  those  who  do  not  hold  it,  and  especially  with 
those  who  are  convinced  that  it  is  false.  Whoever  is  persuaded,  independ- 
ently of  these  disputed  questions,  that  there  may  be  such  a  thing  as  a  pro- 
phetic inspiration,  including  the  gift  of  prescience  and  prediction,  must  of 
course  be  unaffected  by  objections  to  its  exercise  in  certain  cases,  resting  on 
the  general  negation  of  that  which  he  knows  to  be  true.  The  other  infer- 
ence, less  obvious  but  for  that  very  reason  more  important,  is  that  the  false 
assumption  now  in  question  must  exert  and  does  exert  an  influence  extend- 
ing far  beyond  the  conclusions  directly  and  avowedly  drawn  from  it.  He 
who  rejects  a  given  passage  of  Isaiah,  because  it  contains  definite  predictions 
of  a  future  too  remote  from  the  times  in  which  he  lived  to  be  the  object  of 
ordinary  human  foresight,  will  of  course  be  led  to  justify  this  condemnation 
by  specific  proofs  drawn  from  the  diction,  style,  or  idiom  of  the  passage,  its 
historical  or  archaeological  allusions,  its  rhetorical  character,  its  moral  tone, 
or  its  religious  spirit.  On  the  discovery  and  presentation  of  such  proofs, 
the  previous  assumption,  which  they  are  intended  to  sustain,  cannot  fail  to 
have  a  warping  influence.  The  writer  cannot  but  be  tempted  to  give 
prominence  to  trifles,  to  extenuate  difficulties,  and  to  violate  consistency  by 
making  that  a  proof  in  one  case,  which  he  overlooks  in  others,  or  positively 
sets  aside  as  inadmissible  or  inconclusive.  This  course  of  things  is  not 
only  natural  but  real ;  it  may  not  only  be  expected  a  priori,  but  established 
ex  eventu,  as  will  be  apparent  from  a  multitude  of  cases  in  the  course  of  the 
ensuing  exposition.  All  that  need  here  be  added  is  the  general  conclusion, 
that  the  indirect  effects  of  such  a  principle  are  more  to  be  suspected  than  its 
immediate  and  avowed  results,  and  that  there  cannot  be  a  graver  practical 
error  than  the  one  already  mentioned  of  obsequiously  following  these  writers 
as  authoritative  guides,  except  when  they  explicitly  apply  their  kqwtov  \\jev- 
Sog  as  a  test  of  truth.  The  only  safe  and  wise  course  is  to  treat  them,  not 
as  judges,  but  as  witnesses,  or  advocates,  and  even  special  pleaders;  to 
weigh  their  dicta  carefully,  and  always  with  a  due  regard  to  what  is  known 
to  be  the  unsound  basis  of  their  criticism  and  exegesis.  That  this  discretion 
may  be  vigilantly  exercised,  without  foregoing  the  advantages  arising  from 
the  modern  philological  improvements,  is  attested  by  the  actual  example  of 
such  men  as  Hengstenberg  and  Havernick  and  others,  trained  in  the  modern 
German  school  of  philology,  and  fully  able  to  avail  themselves  of  its  advan- 
tages, while  at  the  same  time  they  repudiate  its  arbitrary  principles  in  favour 
of  those  held  by  older  writers,  which  may  now  be  considered  as  more  sure 
than  ever,  because  founded  on  a  broader  scientific  basis,  and  because  their 
strength  has  been  attested  by  resistance  to  assaults  as  subtle  and  as  violent 
as  they  can  ever  be  expected  to  encounter.  Some  of  the  critical  and  her- 
meneutical  principles  thus  established  may  be  here  exhibited,  as  furnishing 
the  basis  upon  which  the  following  exposition  of  Isaiah  is  constructed. 


XL  INTRODUCTION. 

In  the  first  place,  it  may   be   propounded,   as  a   settled  principle  of 
critical  investigation,  that  the  bare  suggestion  of  a  way  in  which  the  text 
may  have   been   altered  in   a   given  case,  and  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the 
author,  either  by  fraud  or  accident,  confounded  with  the  language  of  a  later 
writer,  only   creates    a   feeble    probability   in   favour    of   the    emendation 
recommended,  so  as  at  the  utmost  to  entitle  it  to  be  compared  with  the 
received  opinion.     Even   the  clearest  case  of  critical  conjecture,  far  from 
determining  the  question  in  dispute,  only  affords  us  an  additional  alternative, 
and  multiplies  the  objects  among  which  we  are  to  choose.     Our  hypothesis 
may  possibly  be   right,  but  it  may  possibly  be  wrong,  and  between    these 
possibilities  mere   novelty  is  surely  not  sufficient  to  decide.     The  last  con- 
jecture is  not  on  that  account  entitled   to  the  preference.     There  are,  no 
doubt,  degrees  of  probability,  susceptible  of  measurement  ;  but  in  a  vast 
majority  of  cases,  the  conjectural  results  of  the  modern  criticism  are  precisely 
such  as  no  one  would  think  of  entertaining  unless  previously  determined  to 
abandon  the   traditional  or  prevalent  belief.     If  the  common  text,  or  the 
common  opinion  of  its  genuineness,  be  untenable,  these  critical  conjectures 
may  afford  the  most  satisfactory  substitute  ;  but  they  do  not  of  themselves 
decide  the  previous  question,  upon  which  their  own  utility  depends.     If  the 
last  chapters  of  Isaiah  cannot  be  the  work  of  their  reputed  author,  then  it  is 
highly  probable  that  they  were  written  towards  the  close  of  the  Babylonish 
exile  ;  but  it  cannot  be  inferred   from  this  conditional  admission,  that  they 
are  not  genuine,  any  more  than  we  can  argue  that   a  statement  is  untrue, 
because  if  not  true  it  is  false.     The  characteristic  error  of  the  modern  criti- 
cism is  its  habitual  rejection  of  a  reading  or  interpretation,  not  because 
another  is  intrinsically  better,  but  simply  because  there  is  another  to  supply 
its  place.     In  other  words,  it  is  assumed  that,  in  a  doubtful  case,  whatever 
is  established  and  received  is  likely  to  be  spurious,  and  whatever  is  suggested 
for  the  first  time  likely  to  be  genuine,  and  therefore  entitled  not  only  to  be 
put  upon  a  footing  of  equality  with  that  to  which  it  is  opposed,  but  to  take 
precedence  of  it,  so  that  every  doubt  must  be  allowed   to  operate  against 
the  old  opinion  and  in  favour  of  the  new  one. 

But  in  the  second  place,  so  far  is  this  from  being  the  true  principle,  that 
the  direct  reverse  is  true.  Not  only  are  the  chances,  or  the  general  pre- 
sumption, not  in  favour  of  a  change  or  innovation,  as  such  ;  they  are  against 
it,  and  in  favour  of  that  which  has  long  been  established  and  received.  The 
very  fact  of  such  reception  is  presumptive  proof  of  genuineness,  because  it 
shows  how  many  minds  have  so  received  it  without  scruple  or  objection,  or 
in  spite  of  both.  Such  a  presumption  may  indeed  be  overcome  by  counter- 
vailing evidence  ;  but  still  the  presumption  does  exist,  and  is  adverse  to  in- 
novations, simply  viewed  as  such.  If  it  were  merely  on  the  ground,  that  the 
mind,  when  perplexed  by  nearly  balanced  probabilities,  seeks  something  to 


INTRODUCTION.  XLI 

destroy  the  equilibrium,  and  finds  it  in  the  previous  existence  of  the  one 
belief  and  its  reception  by  a  multitude  of  minds,  we  might  allege  the  higher 
claims  of  that  which  is  established  and  received,  if  not  as  being  certainly 
correct,  as  having  been  so  thought  by  others.  In  this  the  human  mind  is 
naturally  prone  to  rest,  until  enabled  by  preponderating  evidence  to  make 
its  own  decision,  so  that  even  in  the  most  doubtful  cases,  it  is  safer  and 
easier  to  abide  by  what  has  long  been  known  and  held  as  true,  than  to 
adopt  a  new  suggestion,  simply  because  it  cannot  be  proved  false.  Here  again 
the  fashionable  modern  criticism  differs  from  that  which  is  beginning  even 
in  Germany  to  supersede  it,  inasmuch  as  the  former  allows  all  the  benefit  of 
doubt  to  innovation,  while  the  latter  gives  it  to  received  opinions. 

The  general  principle  just  stated  is  peculiarly  important  and  appropriate 
in  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text,  because  so  far  as  we  can  trace  its 
history,  it  has  been  marked  by  a  degree  of  uniformity,  arising  from  a  kind 
of  supervision,  to  which  no  other  ancient  writings,  even  the  most  sacred, 
seem  to  have  been  subjected,  not  excepting  the  books  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. To  call  this  Jewish  scrupulosity  and  superstition  does  not  in 
the  least  impair  the  strong  presumption  which  it  raises  in  favour  of  the  text 
as  it  has  been  transmitted  to  us,  and  against  the  emendations  of  conjectural 
criticism.  The  wonderful  resemblance  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  now 
extant  is  admitted  upon  all  hands,  and  explained  as  an  effect  of  the  maso- 
retic  labours  in  the  sixth  or  seventh  century,  by  means  of  which  one  Hebrew 
text  acquired  universal  circulation.  But  this  explanation  needs  itself  to  be 
explained.  The  possibility  of  thus  reducing  many  texts  to  one  has  nothing 
to  support  it  in  the  analogy  of  other  languages  or  other  writings.  The 
variations  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  afford  a  memorable  instance 
of  the  contrary.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  no  such  means  were  used  to  har- 
monize and  reconcile  the  manuscripts  ;  in  other  words,  that  no  Greek  masora 
existed.  How  can  its  absence  be  accounted  for,  except  upon  the  ground, 
that  the  Hebrew  critics  followed  ancient  usage,  and  recorded  a  tradition 
which  had  been  in  existence  for  a  course  of  ages  ?  These  considerations  do 
not  go  to  prove  the  absolute  perfection  of  the  masoretic  text ;  but  they 
unquestionably  do  create  a  very  strong  presumption — stronger  by  far  than 
in  any  other  like  case — against  innovation  and  in  favour  of  tradition.  The 
validity  of  this  conclusion  is  in  fact  conceded  by  the  signal  unanimity  with 
which  the  recent  German  critics,  of  all  classes,  set  aside  the  fantastic  mode 
.of  criticism  practised  by  Cappellus,  Houbigant, and  Lowth,  and  assume  the 
correctness  of  the  masoretic  text  in  every  case  except  where  they  are  driven 
from  it  by  the  stress  of  exegetical  necessity.  That  the  principle  thus  univer- 
sally adopted  in  relation  to  the  criticism  of  letters,  words,  and  phrases,  is 
not  extended  by  these  critics  to  the  criticism  of  larger  passages,  argues  no 
defect  or  error  in  the  principle  itself,  but  only  a  want  of  consistent  uniform- 

c 


xlii  INTRODUCTION. 

ity  in  its  application.  If  it  be  true,  as  all  now  grant,  that  in  relation  to 
the  elements  of  speech,  to  letters,  words,  and  single  phrases,  we  may  safely 
presume  that  the  existing  text  is  right  till  it  is  shown  to  be  wrong,  how  can 
it  be,  that  in  relation  to  whole  sentences  or  larger  contexts,  the  presump- 
tion is  against  the  very  same  tradition  until  positively  proved  to  be  correct  ? 
That  this  is  a  real  inconsistency,  is  not  only  plain  upon  the  face  of  it,  but  ren- 
dered more  unquestionable  by  the  very  natural  and  easy  explanation  of 
*  which  it  is  susceptible.  The  criticism  of  words  and  letters,  though  identical 
in  principle  with  that  of  entire  passages,  is  not  so  closely  connected  with 
the  evidence  of  inspiration  and  prophetic  foresight,  and  is  therefore  less  sub- 
ject to  the  operation  of  the  fundamental  error  of  the  rationalistic  system. 
This  is  the  more  remarkable  because  in  certain  cases,  where  the  main  ques- 
tion happens  to  turn  upon  a  single  word  or  letter,  there  we  find  the  same 
capricious  license  exercised,  without  regard  to  probability  or  evidence,  as  in 
the  ordinary  processes  of  criticism  on  a  larger  scale.  From  these  theoretical 
concessions  and  these  practical  self-contradictions  of  the  modern  critics,  we 
may  safely  infer  the  indisputable  truth  of  the  critical  principles  which  they 
are  forced  to  grant,  and  from  which  they  depart  in  practice  only  when 
adherence  to  them  would  involve  the  necessity  of  granting  that,  the  abso- 
lute negation  of  which  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  their  system. 

All  this  would  be  true  and  relevant,  if  the  book  in  question  were  an 

ancient  classic    handed  down    to  us   in  the  manner  just  described.     But 

Isaiah  constitutes  a  part  of  a  collection  claiming  to  be  a  divine  revelation. 

It  is  itself  expressly  recognised  as  such  in  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian 

religion.     The  authenticity  and  inspiration   of  the   parts  a*re  complicated 

together,  and  involved  in  the  general  question  of  the  inspiration  of  the  whole. 

Whatever  evidence   goes  to  establish  that  of  the  New  Testament  adds  so 

much  to  the  weight  of  Isaiah's  authority.     Whatever  strength  the  claims  of 

the  New  Testament  derive  from  miracles,  from  moral  effects,  from  intrinsic 

qualities,  is  shared  in  some  measure  by  the  book  before  us.     The  same 

thing  is  true   of  the  external  and  internal  evidence  that  the  Old  Testament 

proceeds  from  God.     The  internal  character  of  this  one  book,  its  agreement 

with  the  other  parts  of    Scripture,  and  with  our  highest  conceptions  of 

God,  the  place  which  it  has   held  in  the  estimation  of  intelligent  and  good 

men  through  a  course  of  ages,  its  moral  and  spiritual  influence  on  those 

who  have  received  it  as  the  word  of  God,  so  far  as  this  can  be  determined 

separately  from  that  of  the  whole  Bible  or  of  the  entire  Old  Testament ;  all 

this  invests  the  book  with  an  authority  and  dignity  which  shield  it  from  the 

petty  caprices  of  a  trivial  criticism.     Those  who  believe,  on  these  grounds, 

that  the  book,  as  a  whole,  is  inspired  of  God,  not  only  may,  but  must  be 

unwilling  to  give  ear  to  every  skeptical  or  frivolous   suggestion   as  to  the 

genuineness  of  its   parts.     Even  if  there  were  more  ground  for  misgiving 


INTRODUCTION.  xliii 

than  there  is,  and  fewer  positive  proofs  of  authenticity,  he  whose  faith  is 
founded,  not  on  detached  expressions  or  minute  agreements,  but  on  the 
paramount  claims  of  the  whole  as  such  to 'his  belief  and  reverence,  would 
rather  take  for  granted,  in  a  dubious  case,  that  God  had  providentially  pre- 
served the  text  intact,  than  lift  the  anchor  of  his  faith  and  go  adrift  upon 
the  ocean  of  conjecture,  merely  because  he  could  not  answer  every  fool 
according  to  his  folly. 

The  result  of  these  considerations  is,  that  as  the  neological  interpreters 
assume  the  impossibility  of  inspiration  and  prophetic  foresight,  as  a  principle 
immovable  by  any  indications  of  the  contrary,  however  clear  and  nume- 
rous, so  those  who  hold  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  certain  truth, 
should  suffer  this  their  general  belief  to  influence  their  judgment  on  particular 
questions  both  of  criticism  and  interpretation.  The  effect  should  not  be 
that  of  closing  the  mind  against  conviction,  where  the  reasons  are  sufficient 
to  produce  it,  but  simply  that  of  hindering  all  concessions  to  an  arbitrary 
and  capricious  license  of  conjecture,  and  all  gratuitous  sacrifices  of  received 
opinion  to  the  mere  possibility  of  some  new  notion.  It  is  certainly  not  to 
be  expected  that  believers  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole, 
should  be  content  to  give  up  any  of  its  parts  as  readily  as  if  it  were  an  old 
sons,  or  even  a  more  valuable  relic  of  some  heathen  writer. 

In  conformity  with  what  has  just  been  stated  as  the  only  valid  principle 
of  criticism,  in  the  technical  or  strict  sense,  the  laws  of  interpretation  may 
be  well  defined  to  be  those  of  common  sense,  controlled  by  a  regard  to  the 
divine  authority  and  inspiration  of  the  book,  considered  as  a  fact  already 
established  or  received  as  true.  The  design  of  biblical  interpretation  is  not 
to  prove,  although  it  may  illustrate,  the  canonical  authority  of  that  which 
is  interpreted.  This  is  a  question  to  be  previously  settled,  by  a  view  of  the 
whole  book  or  of  the  whole  collection  which  includes  it,  in  connexion  with 
the  various  grounds  on  which  its  claims  to  such  authority  are  rested.  Every 
competent  expounder  of  Isaiah,  whether  infidel  or  Christian,  comes  before 
the  public  with  his  opinion  upon  this  point  formed,  and  with  a  fixed  deter- 
mination to  regulate  his  treatment  of  particulars  accordingly.  The  writer 
who  should  feign  to  be  neutral  or  indifferent  in  this  respect,  would  find  it  hard 
to  gain  the  public  ear,  and  harder  still  to  control  the  public  judgment. 
While  the  rationalist  therefore  avowedly  proceeds  upon  the  supposition,  that 
the  book  before  him  is  and  can  be  nothing  more  than  a  human  composition, 
it  is  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  the  Christian  interpreter  to  treat  it  as 
the  work  both  of  God  and  man,  a  divine  revelation  and  a  human  composi- 
tion, the  contents  of  which  are  never  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  manner  inconsis- 
tent either  with  the  supposition  of  its  inspiration  or  with  that  of  its  real  human 
origin.  The  latter  hypothesis  is  so  essential,  that  there  cannot  be  a  sound 
interpretation,  where  there  is  not  a  consistent  and  a  constant  application  of 


xliv  INTRODUCTION. 

the  same  rules  which  control  the  exposition  of  all  other  writings,  qualified 
only  by  a  constant  recollection  of  the  well-attested  claims  of  the  book 
expounded  to  the  character  of  atdivine  revelation.  One  important  practical 
result  of  this  assumption  is,  that  seeming  contradictions  and  discrepancies  are 
neither  to  be  passed  by,  as  they  might  be  in  an  ordinary  composition,  nor 
regarded  as  so  many  refutations  of  the  doctrine  that  the  writing  which 
contains  them  is  inspired  of  God,  but  rather  interpreted  with  due  regard  to 
the  analogy  of  Scripture,  and  with  a  constant  preference,  where  other 
things  are  equal,  of  those  explanations  which  are  most  in  agreement  with  the 
general  fact  of  inspiration  upon  which  the  exposition  rests.  The  attempt 
to  explain  every  passage  or  expression  by  itself,  and  to  assume  the  prima 
facie  meaning  as  in  every  case  the  true  one,  without  any  reference  to  other 
parts  of  the  same  book,  or  to  other  books  of  the  same  collection,  is  absurd 
in  theory  and  directly  contradicted  by  the  universal  usage  of  mankind  in 
determining  the  sense  of  other  writings,  while  it  practically  tends  to  put 
the  Christian  interpreter  in  a  situation  of  extreme  disadvantage  with  respect 
to  the  neologist,  who  does  not  hesitate  to  press  into  the  service  of  his  own 
interpretation  every  argument  afforded  by  analogy.  The  evil  effect  of  this 
mistaken  notion  on  the  part  of  Christian  writers  is  not  merely  that  they 
often  fail  to  vindicate  the  truth,  but  that  they  directly  contribute  to  the 
triumph  of  its  enemies. 

"With  respect  to  the  prophetic  parts  of  Scripture,  and  to  the  writings  of 
Isaiah  in  particular,  a  few  exegetical  maxims  may  be  added  to  the  general 
principles  already  stated.  These,  for  the  most  part,  will  be  negative  in 
form,  as  being  intended  to  preclude  certain  fallacies  and  practical  errors, 
which  have  greatly  hindered  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  book  before  us. 
The  generic  formulas  here  used  will  be  abundantly  exemplified  hereafter  by 
specific  instances  arising  in  the  course  of  the  interpretation. 

All  prophecies  are  not  predictions,  i.  e.  all  the  writings  of  the  Prophets, 
and  of  this  one  in  particular,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  descriptive  of  future 
events.  The  contrary  error,  which  has  arisen  chiefly  from  the  modern  and 
restricted  usage  of  the  word  prophet  and  its  cognate  terms,  has  generated 
some  ot  the  most  crude  extravagancies  of  prophetic  exegesis.  It  has  been 
shown  already,  by  a  historical  and  philological  induction,  that  the  scriptural 
idea  of  prophecy  is  far  more  extensive,  that  the  prophets  were  inspired  to 
reveal  the  truth  and  will  of  God,  in  reference  to  the  past  and  present,  no 
less  than  the  future.  In  Isaiah,  for  example,  we  find  many  statements  of  a 
general  nature,  and  particularly  exhibitions  of  the  general  principles  which 
govern  the  divine  administration,  especially  in  reference  to  the  chosen  people 
and  their  enemies  or  persecutors. 

All  predictions,  or  prophecies  in  the  restricted  sense,  are  not  specific 
and  exclusive,  i.  e.  limited  to  one  occasion  or  emergency,  but  many  are 


INTRODUCTION.  xlt 

descriptive  of  a  sequence  of  events  which  has  been  often  realized.  The 
vagueness  and  indefiniteness  which  might  seem  to  attach  to  such  predictions, 
and  by  making  their  fulfilment  more  uncertain  to  detract  from  their  impres- 
siveness  and  value,  are  precluded  by  the  fact  that,  while  the  whole  predic- 
tion frequently  admits  of  this  extensive  application,  it  includes  allusions  to 
particular  events,  which  can  hardly  be  mistaken.  Thus  in  some  parts  of 
Isaiah,  there  are  prophetic  pictures  of  the  sieges  of  Jerusalem,  which  can- 
not be  exclusively  applied  to  any  one  event  of  that  kind,  but  the  terms  and 
images  of  which  are  borrowed  partly  from  one  and  partly  from  another 
through  a  course  of  ages.  This  kind  of  prophecy,  so  far  from  being  vague 
and  unimpressive,  is  the  clearest  proof  of  real  inspiration,  because  more 
than  any  other  beyond  the  reach  of  ordinary  human  foresight.  Thus  the 
threatening  against  Babylon,  contained  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
chapters  of  Isaiah,  if  explained  as  a  specific  and  exclusive  prophecy  of  the 
Medo- Persian  conquest,  seems  to  represent  the  downfall  of  the  city  as  more 
sudden  and  complete  than  it  appears  in  history,  and  on  the  other  hand 
affords  a  pretext,  though  a  very  insufficient  one,  for  the  assertion  that  it  may 
have  been  composed  so  near  the  time  of  the  events  foretold  as  to  bring  them 
within  the  reach  of  uninspired  but  sagacious  foresight.  No  such  hypothesis, 
however,  will  account  for  the  extraordinary  truth  of  the  prediction  when 
regarded  as  a  panorama  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  not  in  its  first  inception 
merely,  but  through  all  its  stages  till  its  consummation. 

All  the  predictions  of  Isaiah,  whether  general  or  specific,  are  not  to  be 
literally  understood.  The  ground  of  this  position  is  the  fact,  universally 
admitted,  that  the  prophecies  abound  in  metaphorical  expressions.  To 
assert  that  this  figurative  character  is  limited  to  words  and  clauses,  or  at 
most  to  single  sentences,  is  wholly  arbitrary,  and  at  variance  with  the 
acknowledged  use  of  parables,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  in 
which  important  doctrines  and  events  are  presented  under  a  tropical  cos- 
tume, throughout  a  passage  sometimes  of  considerable  length.  These  facts 
are  sufficient  to  sustain  the  negative  position,  that  the  prophecies  are  not 
invariably  clothed  in  literal  expressions,  or  in  other  words  are  not  to  be 
always  literally  understood. 

The  prophecies  of  this  book  are  not  to  be  always  understood  in  a  figura- 
tive or  spiritual  sense.  The  contrary  assumption  has  engendered  a  vast 
motley  multitude  of  mystical  and  anagogical  interpretations,  sometimes 
superadded  to  the  obvious  sense,  and  sometimes  substituted  for  it,  but  in 
either  case  obscuring  the  true  import  and  defeating  the  design  of  the  predic- 
tion. The  same  application  of  the  laws  of  common  sense  and  of  general 
analogy,  which  shows  that  some  predictions  must  be  metaphorical,  shows 
that  others  must  be  literal.  To  assert,  without  express  authority,  that 
propbecy  must  always  and  exclusively  be  one  or  the  other,  is  as  foolish  as 


xlvi  INTRODUCTION. 

it  would  be  to  assert  the  same  thing  of  the  whole  conversation  of  an  indi- 
vidual throughout  his  lifetime,  or  of  human  speech  in  general.  No  valid 
reason  can  be  given  for  applying  this  exclusive  canon  of  interpretation  to  the 
prophecies,  which  would  not  justify  its  application  to  the  Iliad,  the  iEneid, 
the  Divina  Commedia,  or  the  Paradise  Lost,  an  application  fruitful  only  in 
absurdities.  Isaiah's  prophecies  are  therefore  not  to  be  expounded  on  the 
general  principle,  that  either  a  literal  or  figurative  sense  must  be  assumed 
wherever  it  is  possible.  We  have  already  seen  the  fallacies  resulting  from 
the  assumption,  that  whatever  is  possible  is  probable  or  certain.  To  set 
aside  the  obvious  and  strict  sense,  wherever  it  can  be  done  without  absur- 
dity, is  forbidden  by  the  very  nature  of  the  difference  between  literal  and 
figurative  language.  That  which  is  regular  and  normal  must  at  times  assert 
its  rights  or  it  becomes  anomalous.  On  the  other  hand,  to  claim  prece- 
dence for  the  strict  and  proper  sense  in  every  case,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
fact  that  symbols,  emblems,  images,  and  tropes,  are  characteristic  of  pro- 
phetic language.  In  a  word,  the  question  between  literal  and  tropical  inter- 
pretation is  not  to  be  determined  by  the  application  of  invariable  formulas. 
The  same  remark  may  be  applied  to  the  vexed  question  with  respect  to 
types  and  double  senses.  The  old  extreme  of  constantly  assuming  these 
wherever  it  is  possible,  and  the  later  extreme  of  denying  their  existence, 
may  Ue  both  considered  as  exploded  errors.  That  words  may  be  naturally 
used  with  a  primary  and  secondary  reference,  is  clear  from  all  analogy. 
That  some  things  in  the  old  dispensation  were  intended  to  be  types  of  cor- 
responding objects  in  the  new,  is  clear  from  the  New  Testament.  A  fantas- 
tic philotypia  is  not  more  likely  to  engender  error  than  a  morbid  typophobia, 
except  that  the  first  is  not  merely  negative  in  its  effects,  and  may  be 
exercised  ad  libitum,  whereas  the  other  prides  itself  on  never  adding  to  the 
revelation,  but  is  satisfied  with  taking  from  it.  Both  may  exist,  and  both 
must  be  avoided,  not  by  the  use  of  nostrums  and  universal  rules,  but  by  the 
exercise  of  sound  discretion  in  specific  cases,  guided  by  the  obvious  canon, 
founded  on  experience  and  analogy,  that  types  and  double  senses  do  not 
constitute  the  staple  even  of  prophetic  language,  and  are  therefore  not  to  be 
wantonly  assumed,  in  cases  where  a  simpler  and  more  obvious  exposition  is 
abundantly  sufficient  to  meet  all  the  requisitions  of  the  text  and  context. 

The  question,  under  which  of  these  descriptions  any  prophecy  must  be 
arranged,  i.  e.  the  question  whether  it  is  strictly  a  prediction,  and  if  so, 
whether  it  is  general  or  particular,  literal  or  figurative,  can  only  be 
determined  by  a  thorough  independent  scrutiny  of  each  case  by  itself,  in 
reference  to  form  and  substance,  text  and  context,  without  regard  to  arbi- 
trary and  exclusive  theories,  but  with  a  due  regard  to  the  analogy  of  scrip- 
ture in  general,  and  of  other  prophecies  in  particular,  especially  of  such  as 
belong  to  the  same  writer,  or  at  least  to  the  same  period,  and  apparently 


INTRODUCTION.  xlvii 

relate  to  the  same  subject.  This  is  far  from  being  so  attractive  or  so  easy 
as  the  sweeping  application  of  a  comprehensive  canon  to  all  cases,  like  and 
unlike  ;  but  it  seems  to  be  the  only  process  likely  to  afford  a  satisfactory 
result,  and  one  main  purpose  of  the  following  exposition  is  to  prove  its  effi- 
cacy by  a  laborious  and  fair  experiment. 

In  executing  this  design,  it  is  essential  that  regard  should  be  paid  to  the 
exterior  form  as  well  as  to  the  substance  of  a  passage,  that  rhetorical  embel- 
lishments should  be  distinguished  from  didactic  propositions,  that  prosaic  and 
poetical  peculiarities  should  be  distinctly  and  correctly  estimated  at  their  real 
value.  Experience  has  clearly  shown,  that  such  discrimination  does  not 
always  accompany  the  habit  of  perpetually  praising  the  sublimity  and  beauty 
of  the  author's  style,  a  practice  perfectly  compatible  with  very  indistinct  and 
even  false  conceptions  of  rhetorical  propriety.  The  characteristics  of  Isaiah, 
as  a  writer,  appear  by  some  to  be  regarded  as  consisting  merely  in  the  fre- 
quent occurrence  of  peculiar  forms  of  speech,  for  which  they  are  continually 
on  the  watch,  and  ever  ready  to  imagine  if  they  cannot  find  them.  The 
favourite  phenomenon  of  this  kind  with  the  latest  writers  is  paronomasia,  an 
intentional  resemblance  in  the  form  or  sound  of  words  which  are  nearly  related 
to  each  other  in  a  sentence.  The  frequent  occurrence  of  this  figure  in 
Isaiah  is  beyond  a  doubt ;  but  the  number  of  the  instances  has  been  extra- 
vagantly multiplied  ;  in  some  cases,  it  would  almost  seem,  for  the  purpose 
of  detracting  from  the  author's  merit ;  sometimes  with  an  honest  but  mistaken 
disposition  to  enhance  it.  It  is  an  important  observation  of  Ewald's,  that  a 
mere  assonance  of  words  is  probably  fortuitous,  except  where  a  similar  rela- 
tion can  be  traced  between  the  thoughts  which  they  express.  The  truth  in 
reference  to  this  and  many  other  kindred  topics,  can  be  ascertained  only  in 
the  way  proposed  above,  i.  e.  by  a  due  regard  to  the  matter  and  the  manner 
of  each  passage  in  itself  considered.  This  discriminating  process  necessa- 
rily involves  a  scrupulous  avoidance  of  two  opposite  extremes,  which  have, 
at  different  periods,  and  in  some  cases  simultaneously,  done  much  to  pervert 
and  hinder  the  interpretation  of  the  book  before  us.  The  first  extreme* 
particularly  prevalent  in  earlier  times,  is  that  of  understanding  the  most  highly 
wrought  descriptions,  the  most  vivid  imagery,  the  boldest  personifications,  as 
mere  prose.  This  is  especially  exemplified  in  the  irrational  and  tasteless  man- 
ner of  expounding  apologues  and  parables  by  many  of  the  older  writers, 
who  insist  on  giving  a  specific  sense  to  circumstances  which  are  significant 
only  as  parts  of  one  harmonious  whole.  The  other  extreme,  of  which 
we  have  already  traced  the  origin,  is  that  of  turning  elevated  prose  diver- 
sified by  bursts  of  poetry,  into  a  regular  poem  or  series  of  poems,  technically 
so  considered,  and  subjecting  them  as  such  to  all  the  tests  and  rules  of 
classical  poetry,  and  even  to  the  canons  of  its  versification.  To  expound 
Isaiah  without  any  reference  to  the  perpetual  recurrence  of  antitheses  and 


xlviii  INTRODUCTION. 

other  parallel  constructions,  would  be  now  a  proof  of  utter  incapacity.  Far 
more  indulgence  would  be  probably  extended  to  the  no  less  extravagant  but 
much  less  antiquated  error  of  seeking  perfect  parallels  in  every  sentence, 
torturing  the  plain  sense  into  forced  conformity  with  this  imaginary  standard, 
altering  the  text  to  suit  it,  and  in  short  converting  a  natural  and  unstudied 
form,  in  which  the  Hebrew  mind  expressed  itself  without  regard  to  rules  or 
systems,  into  a  rigorous  scholastic  scheme  of  prosody.  The  recurrence  of 
a  certain  theme,  refrain,  or  burden  at  nearly  equal  intervals — a  structure 
natural  and  common  in  the  elevated  prose  of  various  nations,  for  example  in 
the  sermons  of  the  great  French  preachers — may  be  very  properly  compared 
to  the  strophical  arrangements  of  the  Greek  dramatic  style.  But  when, 
instead  of  an  illustrative  comparison,  the  passages  thus  marked  are  gravely 
classed  as  real  strophes  and  antistrophes,  and  formally  distributed  among 
imaginary  choruses  of  Prophets,  Jews,  and  so  forth,  this  pedantic  affectation 
of  confounding  Hebrew  prophecies  with  Greek  plays,  becomes  chargeable 
with  wasteful  and  ridiculous  excess.  It  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  natural 
and  necessary  consequence  of  this  overstrained  analogy  between  things 
which  occasionally  coincide  in  form,  that  some  of  the  most  recent  German 
critics  do  not  hesitate  to  strike  whole  verses  from  the  text  of  Isaiah,  on  the 
ground  that  they  cannot  be  genuine  because  they  make  the  strophes 
unequal,  and  that  one  of  them  winds  up  a  comparison  between  prophetic 
and  dramatic  poetry  with  several  pages  of  imaginary,  far-fetched,  or  for- 
tuitous coincidences,  both  of  thoughts  and  words,  between  the  writings  of 
Isaiah  and  the  Eumenides  of  iEschylus.  The  golden  mean  between  these 
hurtful  and  irrational  extremes  appears  to  lie  in  the  assiduous  observance  of 
the  true  poetical  ingredients  of  Isaiah's  style,  both  in  themselves  and  in  their 
various  combinations,  with  a  rigid  abstinence  from  all  scholastic  and  pedantic 
theories  of  Hebrew  poetry,  and  all  peculiar  forms  and  methods  which  have 
sprung  from  them  or  tend  to  their  promotion. 

Under  this  last  description  may  be  properly  included  the  fantastic  and 
injurious  mode  of  printing  most  translations  of  Isaiah  since  the  days  ofLowth, 
in  lines  analogous  to  those  of  classical  and  modern  verse.  This  arrange-' 
ment,  into  which  the  good  taste  of  the  Bishop  was  betrayed  by  a  natural 
but  overweening  zeal  for  his  supposed  discovery  of  rhythm  or  measure  in 
the  Hebrew  prophets,  and  which  the  bad  taste  of  succeeding  writers  bids 
fair  to  perpetuate,  is  open  to  a  number  of  objections.  In  the  first  place,  it 
proceeds  upon  a  false  or  at  least  exaggerated  supposition,  that  Isaiah  wrote 
in  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call  verse.  If  the  predominance  of  parallel 
constructions  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  this  mode  of  priming,  then  it  might  be 
adopted  with  propriety  in  many  works  which  all  the  world  regards  as  prose,  in 
various  parts  at  least  of  Seneca,  Augustin,  Larochefoucauld,  Pascal,  Johnson, 
and  even  Macaulay.    The  extent  to  which  it  might  be  carried  is  exemplified 


INTRODUCTION.  xlix 

by  Bishop  Jebb's  ingenious  effort  to  extend  Lowth's  system  to  the  Greek  of 
the  New  Testament,  in  doing  which  lie  actually  prints  long  extracts  from 
the  Gospels  in  the  form  of  Lowth's  Jsaiafh.  Another  proof  of  the  unsound- 
ness of  the  theory,  when  carried  thus  far,  is  the  want  of  unity  among  the 
various  practitioners,  in  Germany  and  England,  with  respect  to  the  division 
and  arrangement  of  the  clauses,  the  regard  due  to  the  masoretic  accents,  and 
the  rhythmical  principle  on  which  the  whole  must  after  all  depend.  Be- 
tween some  specimens  of  this  mode  of  typography  there  seems  to  be  scarcely 
any  thing  in  common  but  the  uneven  termination  of  the  lines.  A  third  ob- 
jection to  this  mode  of  printing  is  the  fact,  which  any  correct  eye  and  ear  may 
bring  to  an  experimental  test,  that  so  far  from  enhancing  the  effect  of  the 
peculiar  construction  of  Isaiah's  sentences,  it  greatly  mars  it,  and  converts 
a  numerous  prose  into  the  blankest  of  all  blank  verse,  by  exciting  expecta- 
tions which  of  course  cannot  be  realized,  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  poetical 
metre  in  the  strict  sense,  and  then  thwarting  it  by  consecutions  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  prosody,  however  sonorous 
or  euphonic  in  themselves.  In  England  and  America,  this  modern  fashion 
seems  to  be  already  an  established  usage,  and  is  even  pushed  so  far  as  to 
require  quotations  from  certain  parts  of  Scripture  to  be  printed  like  poetical 
extracts  in  a  small  type  and  in  lines  by  themselves,  a  usage  which  we  may 
expect  to  see  extended  to  the  rest  of  the  Bible  on  the  principles  of  Jebb. 
In  Germany,  the  younger  and  inferior  writers  appear  still  enamoured  of  this 
wonderful  discovery ;  but  some  of  their  more  eminent  interpreters,  above 
the  common  average  in  taste,  exhibit  symptoms  of  reaction.  Ewald  con- 
tents himself  with  marking  the  divisions  of  the  sentences  and  clauses  after 
the  manner  of  bars  in  music,  while  DeWette,  in  his  excellent  translation  of 
the  Bible,  prints  the  whole  like  prose.  This  is  the  more  significant  because 
DeWette,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Psalms,  had  carried  out  Lowth's  system 
of  parallelisms  in  detail,  with  greater  minuteness  and  precision  than  any  pre- 
ceding writer.  In  the  preface  to  his  Bible,  he  speaks  of  the  arrangement  of 
the  Hebrew  distichs  in  distinct  lines,  as  of  value  only  to  the  Hebrew  scholar, 
while  Ewald  says  expressly  that  the  modern  custom  violates  the  ancient 
usage,  and  mistakes  for  poetry  the  mixed  or  intermediate  prophetic  style. 
Partly  for  these  and  other  reasons  of  a  kindred  nature,  founded  on  what  I 
believe  to  be  the  true  characteristics  of  Isaiah's  style,  partly  in  order  to  save 
room  for  more  important  matters  than  the  marking  of  divisions,  which  the  sim- 
plest reader  even  of  a  version  can  distinguish  for  himself  so  far  as  they  have 
any  real  value,  the  translation  of  Isaiah  will  be  found  in  this  work  printed  as 
prose,  and  in  the  closest  union  with  the  exposition.  This  is  the  method 
which  has  been  successfully  pursued  by  several  judicious  German  writers  of 
the  present  day,  especially  by  Hengstenberg,  as  well  in  his  Christology  as 
in  Lis  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  perhaps  as  a   matter  of  convenience 


l  INTRODUCTION. 

merely,  but  it  may  be  also  with  regard  to  some  of  the  considerations  which 
have  just  been  stated.  With  respect  to  the  translation  in  the  present  vol- 
ume, this  arrangement  is  moreover  rendered  necessary  by  the  relation  which 
it  is  intended  to  sustain  to  the  exegetical  matter  which  accompanies  it.  No 
attempt  has  here  been  made  to  give  a  new  translation  of  the  book,  complete 
in  itself,  and  suited  for  continuous  perusal.  The  translation  is  part  and 
parcel  of  the  commentary,  closely  incorporated  with  it,  and  in  some  degree 
inseparable  from  it.  After  the  study  of  a  passage  with  the  aid  here  fur- 
nished, it  may  no  doubt  be  again  read  with  advantage  in  this  version,  for  the 
sake  of  which  it  has  been  not  only  printed  in  a  different  type,  but  generally 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  paragraph.  This  explanation  seems  to  be 
required,  as  the  whole  form  and  manner  of  the  version  have  been  modified  by 
this  design.  If  meant  for  separate  continuous  perusal,  it  must  of  course 
have  been  so  constructed  as  to  be  easily  intelligible  by  itself;  whereas  a 
version  introduced  as  a  text  or  basis  of  immediate  exposition,  admit- 
ted of  a  closer  approximation  to  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original,  with  all 
its  occasional  obscurity  and  harshness,  than  would  probably  have  been  en- 
dured by  readers  of  refined  taste  in  an  independent  version. 

To  this  account  of  the  precise  relation  which  the  version  of  Isaiah  in  this 
volume  bears  to  the  accompanying  exposition,  may  be  added  a  brief  state- 
ment of  the  twofold  object  which  the  whole  work  is  intended  to  accomplish, 
namely,  a  correct  interpretation  and  a  condensed  historical  synopsis  of  opi- 
nions with  respect  to  it.  The  arduous  task  here  undertaken  is  to  aid  the 
reader  in  determining  the  sense,  not  only  by  my  own  suggestions,  but  by 
those  of  others.  This  historical  element  has  been  introduced  both 
as  a  means  of  exegetical  improvement,  and  for  its  own  sake,  as  an  inte- 
resting chapter  of  the  history  of  opinion  on  a  highly  important  subject. 
In  to  appreciate  the  particular  results  of  this  historical  analysis,  it  will 

be  proper  to  give  some  account  of  the  materials  employed.  A  brief  and 
general  sketch  of  the  progress  of  opinion  and  of  gradual  changes  in  the 
method  of  interpretation  having  been  previously  given  in  a  different  con- 
nexion, it  will  only  be  necessary  here  to  add  a  chronological  enumeration  of 
the  works  which  have  exerted  the  most  lasting  and  extensive  influence  on 
the  interpretation  of  Isaiah. 

The  first  place  in  this  enumeration  is  of  course  due  to  the  Ancient 
Versions,  and  among  these  to  the  Greek  translation  commonly  called 
the  Sepiuagint,  from  the  old  tradition  of  its  having  been  produced  by 
seventy-two  Jews  at  Alexandria  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus. 
The  additional  circumstances,  such  as  the  translation  of  the  whole  law 
by  each  man  separately,  and  their  entire  agreement  afterwards,  are  not 
found  in  the  oldest  authorities,  a*id  are  now  rejected  as  mere  fables.  It 
is  even  a  matter  of  dispute  among  the  learned,  whether  the  whole  of  this 


INTRODUCTION.  M 

translation  was  executed  at  once  or  by  degrees,  by  few  or  many  writ- 
ers, for  the  use  of  the  synagogues  in  Egypt  or  as  a  mere  literary  enter- 
prise. Against  the  unity  of  the  translation  is  the  different  character  of 
the  version  in  different  parts.  The  Pentateuch  is  commonly  regarded  as 
the  best,  and  Daniel  as  the  worst.  The  version  of  Isaiah  is  intermediate 
between  these.  It  is  important  as  the  record  of  an  ancient  exegetical  tradi- 
tion, and  on  account  of  the  use  made  of  it  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
writer  shows  a  special  acquaintance  with  the  usages  and  products  of  Egypt, 
but  is  grammatically  very  inexact,  and  governed  in  translation  by  no  set- 
tled principle.  Hence  he  abounds  in  needless  paraphrases  and  additions, 
euphemistic  variations,  and  allusions  to  opinions  and  events  of  later  times, 
although  the  number  of  these  has  been  exaggerated  by  some  critics.  The 
Hebrew  text  used  by  this  translator  seems  to  have  been  the  one  now  extant, 
but  without  the  masoretic  points.  The  seeming  variations,  used  by  Houbi- 
gant  and  Lowth  as  means  of  textual  correction,  are  most  probably  the  mere 
result  of  ignorance  or  inadvertence.  The  extreme  opinions  formerly  main- 
tained in  reference  to  this  version  have  been  gradually  exchanged  for  a  more 
moderate  and  discriminating  estimate,  acknowledging  its  use  in  many  cases 
of  difficult  interpretation,  but  denying  its  paramount  authority  in  any.  Be- 
sides the  frequent  citation  of  the  Septuagint,  occasional  reference  will  be 
made  to  the  other  old  Greek  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodo- 
tion,  fragments  of  which  have  been  preserved  by  early  writers.  Of  these 
interpreters,  Aquila  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  been  distinguished  by  his 
slavish  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  Hebrew,  Symmachus  by  freedom  and 
a  greater  regard  to  the  Greek  idiom,  while  Theodotion  stood  in  these 
respects  between  them. 

Next  to  these  versions  stands  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  or  Targum  of 
Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  the  date  of  which  is  much  disputed,  but  assigned  by 
a  majority  of  modern  critics  to  the  time  of  Christ,  or  that  immediately  pre 
ceding.  It  derives  its  value  partly  from  its  high  repute  and  influence  among 
the  Jews,  partly  from  its  intrinsic  character  as  being  on  the  whole  a  skilful 
and  correct  translation  into  a  cognate  dialect,  although  disfigured  like  the 
Septuagint  by  many  arbitrary  explanations,  by  additions  to  the  text,  and  by 
allusions  to  the  usages  and  doctrines  of  the  later  Jews.  Its  critical  as  well 
as  exegetical  adherence  to  the  masoretic  text  is  much  more  close  than  that 
of  the  oldest  Greek  translator. 

The  ancient  Syriac  version,  commonly  called  the  PesbitO;  on  account  of 
its  simplicity  and  fidelity,  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  extant.  Its  precise 
date  is  unknown,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  looked  upon  as  ancient  and 
occasionally  needing  explanation,  even  in  the  days  of  Ephrem  Syrus.  It  has 
been  ascribed  by  different  critics  to  a  Jewish  and  a  Christian  writer,  but  the 
latter  supposition  is  the  best  sustained,  both  by  external  and  internal  evidence. 


^"  INTRODUCTION. 

The  opinion  of  some  writers,  as  to  the  use  made  by  this  translator  of  the  Targum 
and  Septuagint,  appears  to  be  regarded  now  as  groundless,  or  at  least  exag- 
gerated. This  version,  as  a  whole,  is  characterized  by  great  exactness  and 
a  close  adherence  to  the  original  expression,  rendered  easy  by  the  near  affinity 
of  Syriac  and  Hebrew. 

The  Vulgate  or  common  Latin  version  of  Isaiah,  regarded  as  authentic 
in  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  executed  by  Jerome,  about  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  afterwards  substituted  for  the  older  Latin  version, 
commonly  called  Itala,  in  use  before,  of  which  only  fragments  are  now 
extant.  This  version,  notwithstanding  many  errors  and  absurd  inter- 
pretations, is  on  the  whole  a  valuable  record  of  ancient  exegetical  tradition, 
and  of  the  fruit  of  Jerome's  oriental  studies.  Its  influence  on  modern 
exegesis,  more  especially  within  the  Church  of  Rome,  has  of  course  been 
very  extensive. 

In  these  four  versions  we  possess  what  may  be  called  the  exegetical  tra- 
dition of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  the  Latin  Church,  the  Greek  Church,  and 
the  Syrian  Church  in  all  its  branches.  This,  in  addition  to  their  mere  anti- 
quity, entitles  them  to  a  consideration  which  cannot  be  claimed  by  other 
versions,  even  though  intrinsically  more  correct.  At  the  same  time,  let  it 
be  observed,  that  in  addition  to  the  original  defects  of  these  translations,  their 
text  is  no  doubt  greatly  corrupted,  having  never  been  subjected  to  any  such 
conservative  process  as  the  Masora  or  critical  tradition  of  the  Jews.  This 
fact  alone  shows  the  folly  of  attempting  to  ascribe  to  either  of  these  versions 
a  traditional  authority  superior  to  that  of  the  Hebrew  text.  From  these 
direct  and  primary  versions,  many  mediate  or  secondary  ones  were  formed 
in  early  times,  the  exegetical  authority  of  which  is  naturally  far  inferior, 
although  they  are  occasionally  useful  in  determining  the  text  of  their 
originals,  and  even  in  explaining  them,  while  still  more  rarely  they  exhibit 
independent  and  remarkable  interpretations  of  the  Hebrew  text.  To  some 
of  these  mediate  versions,  there  will  be  found  occasional  references  in  the 
present  work,  especially  to  the  Arabic  version  of  the  Septuagint,  made  at 
Alexandria,  and  printed  in  the  third  volume  of  the  London  Polyglot.  A 
still  more  frequent  mention  will  be  made  of  an  immediate  Arabic  version  by 
the  celebrated  Jewish  teacher  and  grammarian  of  the  tenth  century,  Saadias 
Gaon,  whose  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  is  found  in  the  same  Polyglot, 
although  his  version  of  Isaiah  was  not  brought  to  light  till  near  the  end  of  the 
last  century.  Both  in  its  merits  and  defects,  it  resembles  the  more  ancient  ver- 
sions, but  approaches  still  more  closely  to  the  exegesis  of  the  rabbins.  The 
occasional  citations  of  this  version  are  derived  from  other  writers,  and  partic- 
ularly from  Geseni  s. 

Next  to  the   Ancient  Versions  may  be  named   the   Greek  and  Latin 
Fathers  who  have  written  on  Isaiah.     Besides  Origen  and  others,  whose 


INTRODUCTION.  liii 

interpretations  have  been  wholly  or  in  a  great  measure  lost,  there  are  still 
extant  those  of  Eusebius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and 
Procopius,  on  the  whole  or  part  of  the  Septuagint  version  of  Isaiah.  These 
are  valuable,  not  so  much  for  any  direct  aid  which  they  afford  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Hebrew  text,  as  for  the  light  which  they  throw  upon  the 
prevalent  theories  of  interpretation  at  a  remote  period,  and  especially  upon 
the  allegorical  and  mystical  method  of  expounding  the  Old  Testament,  of 
which  Origen,  if  not  the  inventor,  was  the  most  successful  champion  and 
practitioner.  Jerome,  the  only  Latin  Father  who  has  written  on  Isaiah, 
while  he  has  some  defects  and  faults  in  common  with  the  Greek  expounders, 
has  the  great  advantage  of  direct  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  text,  and 
with  the  Jewish  method  of  explaining  it.  The  good  effects  of  this  superior 
knowledge,  and  of  his  untiring  diligence,  are  greatly  neutralized  by  haste 
and  inadvertence,  by  a  want  of  consistency  and  settled  principles,  and  by  a 
general  defect  of  judgment.  The  only  Fathers,  of  whose  expositions  a 
direct  use  will  be  made  in  the  present  work,  are  Chrysostom  and  Jerome, 
and  of  these  only  in  the  earlier  chapters.  All  further  references  of  the  same 
kind  are  derived  from  other  commentaries. 

Of  the  Rabbins,  several  are  carefully  compared  and  often  quoted. 
These  are  Solomon  Jarchi,  noted  for  his  close  adherence  to  the  Targum 
and  the  Jewish  tradition  ;  Aben  Ezra,  for  his  independent  rationalistic  views 
and  philological  acuteness ;  David  Kimchi,  for  his  learning  and  good  sense, 
and  for  his  frequent  reference  to  older  writers.  He  often  cites,  among  others, 
his  brother  Moses,  and  his  father,  Joseph  Kimchi.  The  Michlal  Jophi  of  Solo- 
mon Ben  Melech,  with  the  additional  notes  of  Jacob  Abendana,  is  chiefly  a 
selection  of  the  best  rabbinical  interpretations,  particularly  those  of  David 
Kimchi.  The  opinions  of  Abarbenel  and  other  rabbins  are  occasionally 
cited  on  the  authority  of  other  writers. 

Of  the  Reformers,  the  two  greatest  are  kept  constantly  in  view,  through- 
out the  exposition.  Luther's  translation  will  he  always  valued,  not  only  for 
its  author's  sake,  but  for  its  own.  Though  often  inexact  and  paraphrastical, 
it  almost  always  gives  the  true  sense,  and  often  gives  it  with  a  vigour  and 
felicity  of  phrase,  never  attained  in  like  degree  by  the  more  accurate  and 
learned  versions  of  the  present  day.  Calvin  still  towers  above  all  inter- 
preters, in  large  commanding  views  of  revelation  in  its  whole  connexion, 
with  extraordinary  insight  into  the  logical  relations  of  a  passage,  even  where 
its  individual  expressions  were  not  fully  understood.  These  qualities,  to- 
gether with  his  fixed  belief  of  fundamental  doctrines,  his  eminent  soundness 
of  judgment,  and  his  freedom  from  all  tendency  to  paradox,  pedantic  affecta- 
tion, or  fanciful  conceit,  place  him  more  completely  on  a  level  with  the  very 
best  interpreters  of  our  day,  than  almost  any  intervening  writer.  Of  the 
other  Reformers,  only  occasional  citations  will  be  met  with,  such  as  Zwingli, 
Oecolampadius,  and  Fagius. 


liv  INTRODUCTION. 

As  a  representative  of  the  old  school  of  orthodox  interpreters,  we  may 
take  the  annotated  version  of  Junius  and  Tremellius,  distinguished  by  learn- 
ing, ingenuity,  and  exegetical  acumen,  but  disfigured  by  unnatural  and  forced 
constructions,  in  which  the  Hebrew  idiom  is  often  sacrificed  to  some  para- 
doxical novelty.  Less  frequent  reference  will  be  made  to  other  writers  of 
the  same  school  and  period,  who  were  not  accessible  directly,  or  whose  influ- 
ence on  later  writers  has  been  less  considerable. 

The  honours  due  to  the  original  and  independent  founder  of  a  school 
may  be  justly  claimed  by  John  Cocceius,  whose  opinions  gave  occasion  to 
protracted  controversies  in  the  Church  of  Holland.  The  description  usually 
given  of  him,  that  he  finds  Christ  every  where  in  the  Old  Testament,  is 
hardly  expressive  of  his  peculiar  character,  as  set  forth  in  his  work  upon 
Isaiah.  A  more  exact  description  would  be,  that  he  finds  the  Church  and 
the  events  of  Church  history  throughout  the  prophecies,  not  as  a  mystical  or 
secondary  meaning,  but  as  the  proper  and  direct  one.  Of  this  system  many 
striking  specimens  will  be  presented  in  the  exposition. 

The  description  of  Cocceius,  which  has  been  already  quoted,  is  commonly 
accompanied  by  one  of  Grotius,  as  his  *  xegetical  opposite,  who  finds  Christ 
nowhere.  Here  again  the  portrait  is  by  no  means  an  exact  one,  at  least 
as  he  appears  in  his  brief  notes  on  Isaiah.  He  probably  professes  to  find 
Christ  predicted  there  as  often  as  Cocceius  does,  but  with  this  difference,  that 
Grotius  finds  him  always  hidden  under  types,  the  lower  or  immediate  sense 
of  which  is  to  be  sought  as  near  as  may  be  to  the  date  of  the  prediction.  A 
comparison  between  these  two  eminent  writers  is  enough  to  show  the  incor- 
rectness of  the  common  notion,  that  the  hypothesis  of  types  and  double 
senses  is  peculiar  to  tu.*  stricter  theologians  of  the  old  school,  and  the 
rejection  of  them  characteristic  of  the  more  liberal  interpreters.  Cocceius 
seldom  resorts  to  the  assumption  of  a  double  sense,  while  Grotius  seldom 
recognises  Christ  as  a  subject  of  prophecy,  except  where  he  can  institute  a 
typical  relation.  The  grand  objection  to  the  exegesis  of  the  latter,  as  exem- 
plified in  this  book,  is  its  superficial  character  and  the  skeptical  tendencies 
which  it  betrays.  Its  shining  merits  are  ingenious  combination,  happy  con- 
jecture, and  abundant  illustration  from  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics.  The 
nearest  approach  to  him,  in  all  these  qualities,  without  the  least  appearance 
of  dependence,  imitation,  or  collusion,  is  found  in  John  Le  Clerc,  more  com- 
monly called  Clericus.  The  likeness  is  the  more  exact  because  neither  he 
nor  Grotius  has  done  justice  to  his  own  capacity  and  reputation  in  inter- 
preting Isaiah. 

The  first  complete  exposition  of  Isaiah  is  the  great  work  of  Campegius 
Vitringa,  Professor  at  Franeker,  originally  published  in  1714.  Of  the 
preceding  commentaries,  every  one  perhaps  may  be  described  as  holding 
up  some  one  side  of  the  subject  while  the  others  are  neglected.     But  in 


INTRODUCTION.  lv 

this  work  are  collected  all  the  materials  which  at  that  time  were  accessible, 
not  in  an  undigested  state,  but  thoroughly  incorporated  and  arranged  with  a 
degree  of  judgment,  skill,  and  taste,  not  easily  surpassed.  It  is  besides 
distinguished  by  a  candour,  dignity,  and  zeal  for  truth  without  the  least  ad- 
mixture of  acrimonious  bigotry,  which  have  secured  for  it  and  for  its  author 
the  esteem  of  all  succeeding  writers  who  have  read  it,  of  whatever  school 
or  party.  So  complete  is  Vitringa's  exposition  even  now,  that  nothing  more 
would  be  required  to  supply  the  public  wants  but  the  additional  results  of 
more  profound  and  extensive  philological  investigation  during  the  last  cen- 
tury, were  it  not  for  two  defects  which  the  work,  with  all  its  varied  and  trans- 
cendent merit,  does  exhibit.  The  first  is  a  want  of  condensation,  a  prolixity, 
which,  although  not  without  advantages  to  readers  who  have  leisure  to  secure 
them,  is  entirely  unsuited  to  the  tastes  and  habits  of  the  present  age.  The 
other  is  too  strong  a  leaning  to  the  mystical  and  allegorical  interpretation  of 
the  plainest  piophecies,  arising  from  a  mistaken  deference  for  the  old  exe- 
getical  canon,  that  the  prophecies  must  be  made  to  mean  as  much  as  possi- 
ble. To  this  must  be  added  the  erroneous  hypothesis,  not  yet  exploded, 
that  every  prophecy  must  be  specific,  and  must  have  its  fulfilment  in  a  cer- 
tain period  of  history,  to  determine  which  recourse  must  frequently  be  had 
to  fanciful  or  forced  interpretation. 

Nearly  contemporary  with  Vitringa  was  the  learned  German  Pietist,  John 
Henry  Michaelis,  Professor  at  Halle,  who,  in  conjunction  with  his  brother, 
published  there  in  1720  a  Hebrew  Bible  with  marginal  annotations. 
Those  on  the  first  part  of  Isaiah  are  by  no  means  equal  to  the  notes  of  C.  B. 
Michaelis  on  the  Minor  Prophets  in  the  same  volume.  The  former  are 
more  meager  and  contain  less  independent  exposition,  leaning  chiefly  upon 
some  preceding  writers  and  especially  Sebastian  Schmid.  These  notes, 
however,  have  considerable  value  on  account  of  their  references  to  parallel 
passages,  less  numerous  than  those  of  many  other  writers,  but  selected 
with  great  care,  and  with  a  constant  view  to  the  elucidation  of  the  text. 
Occasionally  also  an  original  interpretation  here  presents  itself.  The 
whole  work  is  characterized  by  orthodox  belief  and  a  devout  spirit. 

Independently  of  both  these  works,  though  some  years  later,  appeared 
the  Exposition  of  Isaiah  by  John  Gill,  a  Baptist  minister  in  London. 
Though  designed  for  the  doctrinal  and  practical  improvement  of  the  English 
reader,  it  is  still  distinguished  from  other  books  of  that  class  by  its  erudition 
in  a  single  province,  that  of  talmudic  and  rabbinic  literature.  In  this  depart- 
ment Gill  draws  directly  from  his  own  resources,  which  are  here  extensive, 
while  in  other  matters  he  contents  himself  with  gathering  and  combining, 
often  whimsically,  the  opinions  of  preceding  writers,  and  especially  of  those 
contained  in  the  Critici  Sacri  and  in  Pool's  Synopsis.  His  original  sugges- 
tions are  but  few  and  generally  founded   on  his  own  peculiar  views  of  the 


lvi  INTRODUCTION. 

Apocalypse,  not  as  an  independent  prophecy,  but  as  a  key  to  those  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

Before  either  of  the  works  last  mentioned,  and  nearly  contempo- 
rary with  Vitringa,  appeared  a  Commentary  on  Jsaiuh  by  Dr.  William 
Lowth,  prebendary  of  Winchester,  which  is  usually  printed,  with  his  other 
expositions  of  the  Prophets,  as  a  part  of  Bishop  Patrick's  Commentary  on 
the  Bible.  The  work  on  Isaiah  has  exerted  little  influence  on  later  writers, 
the  less  perhaps  because  eclipsed  by  the  brilliant  success  of  the  Translation, 
published,  more  than  half  a  century  afterwards,  by  the  author's  son,  Robert 
Lowth,  successively  Bishop  of  Limerick,  St.  David's,  Oxford,  and  London, 
universally  acknowledged  to  be  one  of  the  most  accomplished  scholars  and 
elegant  writers  of  his  age  or  nation.  The  influence  of  Lowth's  Isaiah  has 
already  been  described,  so  far  as  it  can  be  regarded  as  injurious  to  the  cause 
of  sound  interpretation  or  enlightened  criticism.  Its  good  effect  has  been 
to  raise  the  estimation  of  Isaiah  as  a  writer  of  extraordinary  genius,  and  to 
introduce  a  method  of  expounding  him,  more  in  accordance  with  the  princi- 
ples of  taste,  than  some  adopted  by  preceding  writers.  Besides  his  work 
upon  Isaiah,  he  contributed  to  this  end  by  his  lectures,  as  Professor  of  Poetry 
at  Oxford,  de  Sacra  Poesi  Hebraeorum,  which  have  been  frequently  repub- 
lished on  the  continent,  and  still  exert  a  salutary  influence  on  the  Ger- 
man critics.  In  his  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text,  he  follows  the  exploded 
system  of  Cappellus,  Houbigant,  and  others,  who  assumed  the  masoretic 
text  to  be  as  faulty  as  it  could  be  without  losing  its  identity,  and  seem  to  make 
it  the  great  object  of  their  criticism  to  change  it  as  extensively  as  possible. 
Many  of  Lowth's  favourite  interpretations,  being  founded  upon  critical  con- 
jecture, are  now  worthless.  The  style  of  his  English  version,  which  ex- 
cited universal  admiration  when  it  first  appeared,  has,  in  the  course  of  nearly 
seventy  years,  become  less  pleasing  to  the  cultivated  ear,  partly  because  a 
taste  has  been  revived  for  that  antique  simplicity  which  Lowth's  contempo- 
raries looked  upon  as  barbarous,  and  of  which  a  far  superior  specimen  is 
furnished  in  the  common  version.  Among  Lowth's  greatest  merits,  in  the 
exposition  and  illustration  of  Isaiah,  must  be  mentioned  his  familiarity  with 
classical  models,  often  suggesting  admirable  parallels,  and  his  just  views, 
arising  from  a  highly  cultivated  taste,  in  reference  to  the  structure  of  the 
prophecies,  and  the  true  import  of  prophetic  imagery. 

Almost  simultaneous  with  the  first  appearance  of  Lowth's  Isaiah  was  the 
publication  of  a  German  version,  with  Notes  for  the  Unlearned,  by  John 
David  Michaelis  (a  nephew  of  John  Henry  before  mentioned),  Professor  at 
Gottingen,  and  for  many  years  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  German 
Orientalists.  His  interpretations  in  this  work  are  often  novel  and  ingenious, 
but  as  often  paradoxical  and  fanciful.  His  version,  although  frequently 
felicitous,  is  marred  by  a  perpetual  affectation  of  colloquial  and  modern 


INTRODUCTION.  LVU 

phraseology,  for  which  he  sometimes  apologizes  on  the  grourjd  that  the 
original  expression  would  not  have  sounded  well  in  German.  He  agrees 
with  Lowth  in  his  contempt  for  the  masoretic  text,  which  he  is  constantly- 
attempting  to  correct ;  but  is  far  below  him  in  refinement  of  taste  and  in  a 
just  appreciation  of  the  literary  merits  of  his  author.  With  respect  to  more 
important  matters,  he  may  be  said  to  occupy  the  turning  point  between  the 
old  and  new  school  of  interpreters.  While  on  the  one  hand,  he  retains  the 
customary  forms  of  speech  and,  at  least  negatively,  recognises  the  divine 
authority  and  inspiration  of  the  Prophet,  he  carries  his  affectation  of  inde- 
pendence and  free-thinking,  in  the  details  of  his  interpretation,  so  far  that 
the  transition  appears  natural  and  easy  to  the  avowed  unbelief  of  his  pupils 
and  successors.  Besides  the  one  already  mentioned,  occasional  reference 
is  made  to  other  works  of  the  same  author. 

The  German  edition  of  Lowth's  Isaiah,  with  additional  notes,  by  Koppe, 
a  colleague  of  Michaelis  at  Gottingen,  deserves  attention,  as  the  work  in 
which  the  extravagant  doctrines  of  the  modern  criticism  with  respect  to  the 
unity,  integrity,  and  genuineness  of  the  prophecies,  were  first  propounded  and 
applied  to  the  writings  of  Isaiah.  The  opposite  doctrines  were  maintained, 
in  all  their  strictness,  by  a  contemporary  Swiss  Professor,  Kocher,  a  disciple 
and  adherent  of  the  orthodox  Dutch  school,  in  a  book  expressly  written 
against  Lowth. 

Passing  over  the  comparatively  unimportant  works  of  Vogel,  Cube, 
Hensler,  and  the  annotated  Latin  versions  of  Dathe  and  Doederlein,  occa- 
sionally cited  in  the  present  volume,  we  may  mention  as  the  next  important 
link  in  the  catena  of  interpretation,  the  famous  Scholia  of  the  younger 
Rosenmuller,  for  many  years  Oriental  Professor  at  Leipzig.  The  part 
relating  to  Isaiah  appeared  first  in  1791  ;  but  the  publication  and  republi- 
cation of  the  several  parts  extend  through  a  period  of  more  than  forty  years. 
As  a  whole,  the  work  is  distinguished  by  a  critical  acquaintance  both  with 
Hebrew  and  the  cognate  dialects,  and  an  industrious  use  of  the  ancient 
versions,  the  rabbinical  interpreters,  and  the  later  writers,  particularly 
Grotius  and  Vitringa,  whole  paragraphs  from  whom  are  often  copied  almost 
verbatim  and  without  express  acknowledgment.  From  its  comprehensive 
plan  and  the  resources  of  the  writer,  this  work  may  be  considered  as  an  adap- 
tation of  Vitringa  to  the  circumstances  of  a  later  period,  including  however 
an  entire  change  of  exegetical  and  doctrinal  opinions.  Without  any  of  the 
eager  zeal  and  party-spirit,  which  occasioned  the  excesses  of  Koppe  and 
Eichhorn,  Rosenmuller  equally  repudiates  the  doctrine  of  prophetic  inspira- 
tion in  the  strict  sense,  and  rejects  whatever  would  imply  or  involve  it. 
The  unsoundness  of  his  principles  in  this  respect  has  given  less  offence  and 
alarm  to  readers  of  a  different  school,  because  accompanied  by  so  much 
calmness  and  apparent  candour,  sometimes  amounting  to  a  neutral  apathy, 

D 


lviii  INTRODUCTION. 

no  more  conducive  to  correct  results  than  the  opposite  extreme  of  partiality 
and  prejudice.  This  very  spirit  of  indifference,  together  with  the  plan  of 
compilation  upon  which  the  Scholia  are  constructed,  added  perhaps  to  an 
original  infirmity  of  judgment,  make  the  author's  own  opinions  and  conclu- 
sions the  least  valuable  part  of  this  extensive  and  laborious  work.  In  the 
abridged  edition,  which  appeared  not  long  before  his  death  (1835),  many 
opinions  of  Gesenius  are  adopted,  some  of  which  Gesenius  in  the  mean  time 
had  himself  abandoned.  The  acknowledgment  of  Messianic  prophecies, 
which  Rosenmuller,  in  his  later  writings,  seems  to  make,  does  not  extend  to 
prophecies  of  Christ,  but  merely  to  vague  and  for  the  most  part  groundless 
expectations  of  a  Messiah  by  the  ancient  prophets. 

An  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  interpretation  is  commonly  supposed  to 
be  marked  by  the  appearance  of  the  Philological,  Critical,  and  Historical 
Commentary  of  Gesenius  (Leipzig,  1821).     This  distinction  is  not  founded 
upon   any  new  principle  or  even  method  of  interpretation  which  the  author 
introduced,  but  on  his  great  celebrity,  authority,  and  influence,  as  a  gram- 
marian and  lexicographer.     Nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  the  work  than 
the  extreme  predilection  of  the  writer  for  the  purely  philological  and  archae- 
ological portions  of  his  task,  and  the  disproportionate  amount  of  space  and 
labour  lavished  on  them.     The  evidence  of  learning  and  acuteness  thus 
afforded  cannot  be  questioned,  but  it  is  often  furnished  at  the  cost  of  other 
more  important  qualities.     The  ablest  portions  of  the  work  have  sometimes 
the  appearance  of  excursus  or  detached  disquisitions  upon  certain  questions  of 
antiquities  or  lexicography.     Even  in  this  chosen  field,  successful  as  Gesenius 
has  been,  later  writers   have  detected  some  infirmities   and   failures.     Of 
these  the  most  important  is  the  needless  multiplication  of  distinct  senses 
and  the  gratuitous  attenuation  of  the  meaning  in   some  words  of  common 
occurrence.     The  merit  of  Gesenius  consists  much  more  in  diligent  investi- 
gation and  perspicuous  arrangement  than  in   a  masterly  application   of  the 
principles   established  and  exemplified  in    the  best  Greek  lexicons.     His 
proneness  to  mistake  distinct  applications  of  a  word,  and  accessory  ideas 
suggested  by  the  context,  for  different  meanings  of  the  word  itself,  is  recog- 
nised in  the  occasional  correction  of  the  fault  by  his  American  translator  (see 
for  example  Heb.  Lex.  p.   148),  to  whom  the  public  would  have  been 
indebted  for  a  much  more  frequent  use  of  the  same  method.     If  any  apology 
is  needed   for  the  frequent  deviations,  in   the  following  exposition,  from 
Gesenius's  decisions,  it-  is  afforded  by  the  rule  which  he  professes  to  have 
followed   in   his   own   use  of  the   cognate  dialects :  ultra   lexica   sapere. 
(Preface  to  Isaiah,  p.  vi.)     With   respect   to   candour   and  impartiality, 
Gesenius  occupies  the  same  ground  with  Rosenmuller,  that  is  to  say,  he  is 
above  suspicion  as  to  any  question  not  connected,  more  or  less  directly,  with 
his  fundamental  error,  that  there  can  be  no  prophetic  foresight.     Another 


INTRODUCTION.  lix 

point  of  similarity  between  them  is  their  seeming  hesitancy  and  instability  of 
judgment,  as  exhibited  in  frequent  changes  of  opinion  upon  minor  points, 
without  a  statement  of  sufficient  reasons.  The  many  variations  which  may 
be  traced  in  the  writings  of  Gesenius,  from  his  early  Lexicons  and  Commen- 
tary on  Isaiah  to  his  great  Thesaurus,  are  no  doubt  proofs  of  intellectual 
progress  and  untiring  diligence  ;  but  it  is  still  true,  that  in  many  cases  oppo- 
site conclusions  seem  to  have  been  drawn  from  precisely  the  same  premises. 
The  Commentary  on  Isaiah  never  reappeared,  but  the  accompanying  version 
was  reprinted,  with  a  few  notes,  in  1829.  This  translation  is  a  spirited 
and  faithful  reproduction  of  the  sense  of  the  original,  and  for  the  most  part 
of  its  characteristic  form,  but  not  without  unnecessary  paraphrases  and  gra- 
tuitous departures  from  the  Hebrew  idiom.  In  these  respects,  and  in  sim- 
plicity of  diction,  it  has  been  much  improved  by  DeWette,  whose  translation 
of  Isaiah  (contained  in  his  version  of  the  Bible,  Heidelberg,  1839)  is 
avowedly  founded  upon  that  of  Gesenius.  The  same  relation  to  the  Com- 
mentary is  sustained  by  Maurer's  notes  for  students  (in  the  first  volume  of 
his  Commentarius  Criticus  in  Vet.  Test.  Leipzig,  1835),  which  exhibit  in 
a  clear  and  compact  form  the  substance  of  Gesenius,  with  occasional  speci- 
mens of  independent  and  ingenious  exposition. 

A  very  different  position  is  assumed  by  Hitzig,  whose  work  upon  Isaiah 
(Heidelberg,  1833)  seems  intended  to  refute  that  of  Gesenius  wherever  a 
dissent  was  possible,  always  excepting  the  sacred  fundamental  principle  of 
unbelief  in  which  they  are  united.  This  polemical  design  of  Hitzig's  work 
has  led  to  many  strained  and  paradoxical  interpretations,  but  at  the  same  time 
to  a  remarkable  display  of  exegetical  invention  and  philological  acuteness, 
both  in  the  application  of  the  principles  of  Ewald's  Grammar  where  it 
varies  from  Gesenius,  and  in  original  solutions  of  grammatical  and  other 
problems.  In  some  points  Hitzig  may  be  said  to  have  receded  to  the 
ground  of  Eichhorn,  as  for  instance  in  the  wildness  of  his  critical  conjec- 
tures, not  so  much  in  reference  to  words  or  letters  as  to  larger  passages,  and 
also  in  his  leaning  to  the  old  idea  of  predictions  ex  eventu,  or  historical  allu- 
sions clothed  in  a  prophetical  costume.  The  metaphysical  obscurity  of 
Hitzig's  style,  in  certain  cases,  may  be  either  the  result  of  individual  pecu- 
liarity, or  symptomatic  of  the  general  progress  in  the  German  mind  from 
common-sense  rationalism  or  deism  to  the  more  transcendental  forms  of 
unbelief.  Another  characteristic  of  this  writer  is  his  undisguised  contempt, 
if  not  for  Isaiah  in  particular,  for  Judaism  and  its  faith  in  general.  In  point 
of  taste,  he  is  remarkable  at  once  for  high  pretensions  and  for  gross  defects. 

Hendewerk's  commentary  on  Isaiah,  (Konigsberg,  vol.  1,  1838,  vol.  2, 
1843)  though  indicative  of  scholarship  and  talent,  has  a  less  marked  and  in- 
dependent character  than  that  of  Hitzig,  and  exhibits  in  a  great  degree  the 
faults  and  merits  of  a  juvenile  performance.     The  author's  reading  sesaas  to 


lx  INTRODUCTION. 

have  been  limited  to  modern  writers,  and  the  controversial  attitude  which 
he  is  constantly  assuming  with  respect  to  Hengstenberg  or  Hitzig,  while 
it  makes  his  exposition  less  intelligible,  unless  compared  with  that  of 
his  opponents,  also  impairs  the  reader's  confidence  in  his  impartiality 
and  candour.  His  original  suggestions  are  in  many  cases  striking  and  in 
some  truly  valuable,  as  will  appear  from  the  examples  cited  in  the 
exposition. 

A  place  is  due,  in  this  part  of  the  chronological  succession,  to  two  works 
on  Isaiah  in  the  English  language.  The  first  is  by  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes 
of  Philadelphia,  (3  vols.  8vo.,  Boston,  1840,)  well  known  by  previous  pub- 
lications on  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  and  by  a  later  work  on  Job.  His 
exposition  of  Isaiah  comprehends  a  large  part  of  the  valuable  substance  of 
Vitringa,  Rosenmuller,  and  Gesenius,  with  occasional  reference  to  the  older 
writers,  as  contained  in  Pool's  Synopsis  and  the  Critici  Sacri.  The  great 
fault  of  the  work  is  not  its  want  of  matter,  but  of  matter  well  digested  and 
condensed.  Particular  and  even  disproportionate  attention  has  been  paid 
to  archaeological  illustration,  especially  as  furnished  by  the  modern  travellers. 
Practical  observations  are  admitted,  but  without  sufficient  uniformity  or  any 
settled  method.  The  author's  views  of  inspiration  in  general,  and  of  the 
inspiration  of  Isaiah  in  particular,  are  sound,  but  not  entirely  consistent  with 
the  deference  occasionally  paid  to  neological  interpreters,  in  cases  where 
heir  judgments  are,  in  fact  though  not  in  form,  determined  by  a  false  assump- 
tion, which  no  one  more  decidedly  rejects  than  Mr.  Barnes.  The  New 
Translation,  which  accompanies  the  Commentary,  seems  to  be  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  it,  and  can  hardly  be  considered  an  improvement,  either  on  the 
common  version,  or  on  that  of  Lowth. 

Some  of  the  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  the  work  of  Dr.  Henderson, 
(London,  1840,)  in  which  there  are  appearances  of  greater  haste  and  less 
laborious  effort,  but  at  the  same  time  of  a  more  extended  reading,  and  a  more 
independent  exegetical  judgment.  The  English  author,  though  familiar 
with  the  latest  German  writers  who  preceded  him,  is  not  deterred  by  their 
example  or  authority  from  the  avowal  of  his  doctrinal  belief,  or  from  a  proper 
use  of  analogy  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Prophet.  Further  description  of 
these  two  works  is  rendered  unnecessary  by  the  frequency  with  which  they 
are  quoted  or  referred  to  in  the  Commentary. 

Ewald's  exposition  of  Isaiah,  contained  in  his  collective  work  upon  the 
Hebrew  Prophets,  (Stuttgart,  1841,)  derives  great  authority  from  his 
acknowledged  eminence  in  Germany,  as  a  profound  philosophical  gramma- 
rian. His  attention  has  been  given  almost  exclusively  to  the  chronological 
arrangement  of  the  parts  and  the  translation  of  the  text.  The  latter  has 
great  value,  not  only  as  containing  the  results  of  Ewald's  philological  re- 
searches, but  also  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  qualities,  and  more  especially 


INTRODUCTION.  lxi 

its  faithful  exhibition  of  the  form  of  the  original  in  its  simplicity.  In  this 
respect  it  is  a  great  advance  on  all  preceding  versions.  The  Commentary  is 
extremely  meager,  and  remarkable,  like  most  of  Ewald's  writings,  for  the  ab- 
sence of  all  reference  to  other  modern  writers  or  opinions.  The  liberties 
taken  with  the  text,  though#not  very  numerous,  are  sometimes  very  violent 
and  arbitrary.  The  sweeping  criticism,  on  which  his  chronological  arrange- 
ment rests,  will  be  considered  in  another  place.  From  the  rationalistic 
school  of  Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius,  Ewald  differs  in  regarding  Isaiah  as 
inspired,  which  admission  really  extends,  however,  only  to  a  kind  of  vague, 
poetical,  anticipation,  wholly  exclusive  of  distinct  prophetic  foresight  of  the 
distant  future,  in  rejecting  which,  as  a  thing  impossible  or  not  susceptible  of 
proof,  he  coincides  with  the  preceding  writers. 

Umbreit's  practical  Commentary  on  Isaiah  (Hamburg,  1842)  is  little 
more  than  a  declamatory  paraphrase,  composed  in  what  an  English  reader 
would  regard  as  very  questionable  taste.  The  real  value  of  the  work  con- 
sists in  a  translation  of  Isaiah,  and  occasional  notes  on  different  questions  of 
philology  and  criticism.  On  such  points  the  author  coincides  for  the  most 
part  with  Gesenius,  while  in  his  general  views  of  prophecy  he  seems  to  ap- 
proach nearer  to  Ewald,  with  whom  he  frequently  concurs  in  making  that  a 
vague  anticipation  which  the  other  writers  take  as  a  specific  prophecy.  At 
the  same  time,  he  differs  from  this  whole  class  of  interpreters,  in  frequently 
alluding  to  the  Saviour  and  the  new  dispensation  as  the  subjects  of  predic- 
tion, but  in  what  sense  it  is  hard  to  ascertain,  the  rather  as  he  practically 
holds  the  modern  doctrine,  that  distinct  prediction  of  the  distant  future  is  suf- 
ficient to  disprove  the  genuineness  of  a  passage. 

Knobel's  Isaiah  (Leipzig,  1843)  is  exceedingly  convenient  as  a  condensed 
synopsis  of  the  principal  interpretations.  In  the  expression  of  his  own  views, 
the  author  shows  his  strict  adherence  to  the  modern  school  of  criticism  and 
exegesis.  His  critical  decisions,  with  respect  to  some  portions  of  the  book, 
are  very  arbitrary,  and  the  detailed  proofs,  by  which  he  sustains  them,  in  a 
high  degree  extravagant.  In  rejecting  the  hypothesis  of  inspiration,  and  in 
asserting  the  mere  human  character  and  origin  of  the  prophecies,  he  is  un- 
commonly explicit  and  decided,  both  in  this  work  and  in  one  which  he  had 
previously  published  upon  prophecy  in  general.  On  the  whole,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  few  good  exegetical  suggestions,  he  may  be  looked  upon  as 
having  retrograded  to  the  ground  of  the  old  neologists  from  that  assumed  by 
Ewald  and  Umbreit. 

It  is  gratifying  to  be  able  to  conclude  this  list  of  German  writers  with  a 
few  names,  belonging  to  a  very  different  school,  and  connected  with  a  pow- 
erful reaction  in  favour  of  old  principles,  as  being  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
valuable  fruits  of  late  improvements  and  discoveries.  The  way  of  this  im- 
portant movement,  so  far  as  Isaiah  is  concerned,  was  opened,  not  by  regular 


lxii  INTRODUCTION. 

interpreters  of  this  book,  but  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  Christology  (1829), 
followedby  Kleinert  in  his  volume  on  the  genuineness  of  Isaiah's  prophecies 
(1829),  and  still  more  recently  by  Havernick  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  (1844).  An  application  of  the  same  essential  principles  to  the 
direct  interpretation  of  Isaiah  has  been  made  by  Drechsler,  Professor  at 
Erlangen,  the  first  volume  of  whose  Commentary  (Erlangen,  1845)  reached 
me  too  late  to  allow  the  present  use  of  any  part  of  it  except  the  Introduc- 
tion, to  which  reference  is  made  below.  Besides  the  exegetical  works  already 
mentioned,  occasional  references  will  be  found  to  others  illustrative  of  certain 
passages  or  certain  topics.  As  most  of  these  are  too  well  known  to  need 
description,  it  will  be  sufficient  here  to  name,  as  authorities  in  natural  history 
and  geography  the  Hierozoicon  of  Bochart  and  the  Biblical  Researches  of 
Robinson  and  Smith. 

It  only  remains  to  speak  of  the  arrangement  a«d  division  of  the  book 
before  proceeding  to  expound  it.  The  detailed  examination  of  particular 
questions  under  this  head  will  be  found  in  the  exposition  itself,  and  for  the 
most  part  in  the  special  introductions  to  the  several  chapters.  All  that 
is  here  intended  is  a  general  statement  of  the  case,  preparatory  to  these 
more  minute  discussions.  The  progress  of  opinion  upon  this  part  of  the 
subject  has  been  closely  connected  with  the  succession  of  exegetical  and 
critical  hypotheses  already  mentioned.  The  same  extremes,  reactions, 
compromises,  may  be  traced  substantially  in  both.  The  older  writers  com- 
monly assumed  that  the  book  was  arranged  in  chronological  order  by  the 
author  himself.  Thus  Jerome  says  expressly,  that  the  prophecies  belonging 
to  the  four  reigns  follow  one  another  regularly,  without  mixture  or  confusion. 
J.  H.  Michaelis  regards  the  first  verse  of  the  first,  sixth,  and  seventh  chap- 
ters, and  the  twenty-eighth  verse  of  the  fourteenth  chapter,  as  the  dividing 
marks  of  the  four  reigns.  This  supposition  of  a  strict  chronological  ar- 
rangement, although  rather  taken  for  granted  than  determined  by  investiga- 
tion, is  by  no  means  so  absurd  as  some  have  represented  it.  It  rests  on  im- 
memorial tradition,  and  the  analogy  of  the  other  books,  the  few  exceptions 
tending  rather  to  confirm  the  rule.  The  principal  objections  to  it  are,  that 
the  first  chapter  is  evidently  later  than  the  second  ;  that  the  sixth,  containing 
the  account  of  Isaiah's  ordination  to  his  office,  must  be  the  first  in  point  of 
date ;  and  that  the  seventeenth  chapter  relates  to  the  first  years  of  the 
reign  of  Ahaz,  whereas  ch.  14 :  28  is  assigned  to  the  year  in  which 
he  died. 

These  objections,  though  by  no  means  insurmountable,  as  will  be  seen 
hereafter,  led  Vitringa  to  relinquish  the  hypothesis  of  strict  chronological 
arrangement  by  the  author  himself,  for  that  of  arrangement  by  another 
hand  (perhaps  by  the  men  of  Hezelciah  mentioned  Prov.  25  :  1),  in  the 
order  of  subjects,  those  discourses  being  placed  together  whose  contents  are 


INTRODUCTION.  Lxiit 

most  alike.  He  accordingly  divides  Isaiah  into  five  books,  after  the  manner 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  Psalter,  the  first  (ch.  i — xn)  containing  prophecies 
directed  against  Judah  and  Israel,  the  second  (ch.  xiii-xxm)  against 
certain  foreign  powers,  the  third  (ch.  xxiv-xxxv)  against  the  enemies 
and  unworthy  members  of  the  church,  the  fourth  (ch.  xl-xdviii)  relat- 
ing chiefly  to  the  Babylonish  exile  and  deliverance  from  it,  the  fifth  (ch. 
xlix-lxvi)  to  the  person  and  reign  of  the  Messiah,  while  ch.  xxxvi-xxxix 
are  distinguished  from  the  rest  as  being  purely  historical.  The  titles 
in  ch.  1:1.  2:  1.  7:  1.  13:  1.  14:  28  etc.  he  regards  as  genuine,  ex- 
cept that  the  names  of  the  four  kings  were  added  to  the  first  by  the  com- 
piler, in  order  to  convert  what  was  at  first  the  title  of  the  first  chapter  only 
into  a  general  description  of  the  whole  book. 

This  ingenious  hypothesis  still  leaves  it  unexplained  why  certain  series 
were  separated  from  each  other,  for  example  why  ch.  xiii-xxm  are  inter- 
posed between  ch.  i-xii  and  ch.  xxiv-xxxv.  This  led  Koppe,  whom  Ge- 
senius  describes  as  the  pioneer  of  the  modern  criticism,  to  reject  that  part  of 
Vitringa's  theory  which  supposes  the  book  to  have  received  its  present  form 
in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  while  he  carries  out  to  an  absurd  extreme  the 
general  hypothesis  of  compilation  and  re-arrangement  by  a  later  hand. 
According  to  Koppe  and  Augusti,  the  book,  as  we  now  have  it,  is  in  per- 
fect confusion,  and  its  actual  arrangement  wholly  without  authority.  To 
confirm  and  explain  this,  Eichhorn  and  Bertholdt  assume  the  existence  of 
several  distinct  collections  of  Isaiah's  writings,  to  each  of  which  additions 
were  gradually  made,  until  the  whole  assumed  its  present  form. 

The  same  general  view  is  taken  of  the  matter  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald, 
but  with  this  distinction,  that  the  former  thinks  the  frame-work  or  sub- 
stratum of  the  original  collections  still  remains,  and  needs  only  to  be 
freed  from  subsequent  interpolations,  while  the  latter  sticks  more  closely 
to  the  earlier  idea,  that  the  whole  is  in  confusion,  partly  as  he  supposes 
from  the  loss  of  many  prophecies  no  longer  extant,  and  can  be  even 
partially  restored  to  its  original  condition,  only  by  critically  reconstruct- 
ing it  under  the  guidance  of  internal  evidence.  Ewald  accordingly  aban- 
dons the  traditional  arrangement  altogether,  and  exhibits  the  disjecta 
membra  in  an  order  of  his  own.  The  critical  value  of  the  diagnosis,  which 
controls  this  process,  may  be  estimated  from  a  single  principle,  assumed 
if  not  avowed  throughout  it,  namely,  that  passages  which  treat  of  the 
same  subject,  or  resemble  one  another  strongly  in  expression,  must  be 
placed  together  as  component  parts  of  one  continuous  composition.  The 
absurdity  of  this  assumption  might  be  rendered  palpable  by  simply  applying 
it  to  any  classical  or  modern  author,  who  has  practised  a  variety  of  styles 
but  with  a  frequent  recurrence  of  the  same  ideas,  for  example,  Horace, 
Goethe,  Moore,  or  Byron.     The  practical  value  of  the  method  may  be  best 


UUV  INTRODUCTION. 

shown  by  a  comparative  statement  of  its  actual  results  in  the  hands  of  two 
contemporary  writers,  Ewald  and  Hendewerk,  both  of  whom  have  followed 
this  eccentric  method  in  the  printing  of  their  commentaries,  to  the  great 
annoyance  of  the  reader,  even  when  assisted  by  an  index.  Without  attend- 
ing to  the  larger  divisions  or  cycles  introduced  by  either,  a  simple  exhibition 
of  the  order  in  which  the  first  chapters  are  arranged  by  these  two  writers, 
will  be  amply  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose. 

Hendewerk's  arrangement  is  as  follows.  Ch.  6. — Chs.  1-5. — Ch.  7 
(vs.  1-9.)— Ch.  17  (vs.  1-14.)— Ch.  7  (vs.  10-25.)— Chs.  8,  9.— 
Ch.  10  (vs.  1-27.)— Ch.  14  (vs.  24-27.)— Ch.  10  (vs.  28-34.)— Chs. 
11,  12.— Ch.  14  (vs.  28-32.)— Chs.  15,  16.— Chs.  18,  19.— Ch.  21  (vs. 
11-17.) — Ch.  23.— Chs.  28,  29.— Ch.  20.— Chs.  31,  32.— Ch.  22.— 
Ch.  33.— Chs.  36-39.— Chs.  24-27.— Chs.  34,  55.— Ch.  13.— Ch.  14 
(vs.  1-23.)— Ch.  21  (vs.  1-10.)— Chs.  40-66. 

Ewald's  arrangement  is  as  follows.  Ch.  6. — Chs.  2-4. — Ch.  5  (vs.  1- 
25.)— Ch.  9.  (vs.  7-20.)— Ch.  10  (vs.  1-4.)—  Ch.  5  (vs.  26-30.)— Ch. 
17  (vs.  1-11.)— Chs.  7,  8.— Ch.  9  (vs.  1-6.)— Ch.  14  (vs.  25-32.)— 
Chs.  15,  16.— Ch.  21  (vs.  11-17.)— Ch.  23.— Ch.  1.— Ch.  22.— Chs. 
28-32.— Ch.  20.— Ch.  10  (vs.  5-34.)—  Ch.  11.— Ch.  17  (vs.  12-18.)— 
Ch.  18.— Ch.  14  (vs.  24-27,)— Ch.  33.— Ch.  37  (vs.  22-35.)— Ch.  19. 
— Ch.  21  (vs.  1-10.)—  Ch.  13.— Ch.  14  (vs.  1-23.)— Chs.  40-66.— 
Chs.  34,  35.— Ch.  24.— Ch.  25  (vs.  6-11.)— Ch.  25  (vs.  1-5.)— Ch.  25 
(v.  12.) — Chs.  26,  27. — Ch.  12  is  rejected  as  of  later  origin,  but  without 
determining  its  date.  These  arrangements,  and  particularly  that  of  Ewald, 
may  be  reckoned  not  only  the  latest  but  the  last  achievement  of  the 
higher  criticism.  "  The  force  of  nature  can  no  further  go."  We  need 
look  for  no  invention  beyond  this,  unless  it  be  that  of  reading  the  book 
backwards,  or  shuffling  the  chapters  like  a  pack  of  cards. 

Long  before  this,  Gesenius  had  recoiled  from  the  extremes  to  which 
the  higher  criticism  tended,  and  attempted  to  occupy  a  middle  ground, 
by  blending  the  hypotheses  of  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  Vitringa,  or  in  other 
words  assuming  a  regard  both  to  chronological  order  and  to  the  affinity 
of  subjects,  at  the  same  time  holding  fast  to  the  favourite  idea  of  suc- 
cessive additions  and  distinct  compilations.  He  accordingly  assumes  four 
parts  or  books.  The  first  (ch.  i-xn)  consists  of  prophecies  belonging 
to  the  earliest  period  of  Isaiah's  ministry,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
interpolations.  The  sixth  chapter  should  stand  first,  according  to  the 
Jewish  tradition  as  recorded  by  Jarchi  and  Aben  Ezra.  The  first  chap- 
ter is  somewhat  later  than  the  second,  third,  and  fourth.  The  seventh, 
though  authentic,  was  probably  not  written  by  Isaiah.  The  eleventh 
and  twelfth  may  also  be  spurious,  but  were  early  added  to  the  tenth. 
This  book  he  regards  as  the  original  collection,  and  the  first  verse  as  its 


INTRODUCTION.  lxv 

original  title  or  inscription.  The  second  book  (ch.  xiii-xxiii)  consists 
of  prophecies  against  foreign  nations,  excepting  ch.  xxn,  which  he  sup- 
poses to  have  found  its  way  here  from  having  been  early  joined  with  ch. 
xxi.  A  characteristic  feature  of  this  book  is  the  use  of  burden,  as  a  title 
or  inscription,  which  he  thinks  may  be  certainly  ascribed  to  the  compiler. 
The  third  book  (ch.  xxiv-xxxv)  contains  a  series  of  genuine  prophe- 
cies belonging  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (ch.  xxviii-xxxin),  with  two 
other  series  of  later  date,  placed  by  the  hand  of  a  compiler  at  the  beginning 
(ch.  xxiv-xxvii)  and  the  end  (ch.  xxxiv,  xxxv)  of  this  collection, 
while  it  was  further  augmented  by  a  historical  appendix  (ch.  xxxvi-xxxix), 
in  which  Isaiah  makes  a  prominent  figure.  The  fourth  and  last  book  (ch. 
xl-xlvi),  as  Gesenius  thinks,  was  added  to  the  others  long  after  the 
captivity. 

Here,  as  in   other  cases   previously  mentioned,  Gesenius  differs  from 
his  predecessors  in  the  higher  criticism,  only  in  degree,  refusing  to  go  with 
them  in  the  application  of  their  principles,  but  holding  fast  the  principles 
themselves.     If,  on  the  one  hand,  he  is  right  in  assuming,  upon  mere  conjec- 
ture, several  different  collections  of  the  writings  of  Isaiah  formed  succes- 
sively, and  in  rejecting,  upon  mere  internal  evidence,  the  parts  which  do  not 
suit  his  purpose  or  his  theory,  then  is  it  utterly  impossible  to  give  any  definite 
reason  for  refusing  our  assent  to  the  more  thorough  application  of  the  same 
process  by  the  bolder  hand  of  Ewald.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  Gesenius  is 
correct  in  drawing  back  from  the  legitimate  results  of  such  a  theory,  then  is  it 
utterly  impossible  to  find  a  safe  or  definite  position,  without  receding  further 
and  relinquishing  the  theory  itself.     This  additional  reaction  has  not  failed 
to  take   place  in   the  progress  of  the  controversy.     It  is  most   distinctly 
marked    and   ably  justified  in   Havemick's  Introduction  to   Isaiah,  where 
the  author  lays  it  down,  not  as  a  makeshift  or  a  desperate  return  to  old 
opinions  without  ground  or  reason,  but  as  the  natural  result  of  philological 
and  critical  induction,  that  the  writings  of  Isaiah,  as  now  extant,  form  a 
compact,  homogeneous,  and  well-ordered  whole,  proceeding,  in  the  main,  if 
not  in  all  its  parts,  from  the   hand  of  the  original   author.     Whoever  has 
been  called  to  work  his  way  through  the  extravagant  and  endless  theories  of 
the  '  higher  criticism,'  without  those  early  prepossessions  in  its  favour  which 
grow  with  the  growth  of  almost  every  German  scholar,  far  from  finding  this 
new  doctrine  strange  or  arbitrary,  must  experience  a  feeling  of  relief  at  thus 
landing  from  the  ocean  of  conjecture  on  the  terra  firma  of  historical  tradi- 
tion, analogical  reasoning,  and  common  sense.     The  advantages  of  such  a 
ground  can  be  appreciated  far  more  justly  after  such  experience  than  before 
it,  because  then  there  might  be  a  misgiving  lest  some  one  of  the  many  pos- 
sibilities proposed  as  substitutes  for  immemorial  tradition  might  prove  true ; 
but  now  the  reader,  having  found  by  actual  experiment,  not  only  that  these 


lxvi  INTRODUCTION. 

ways  do  not  lead  him  right,  but  that  they  lead  him  nowhere,  falls  back 
with  strong  assurance,  not  by  any  means  upon  all  the  minor  articles  of  the 
ancient  creed,  which  he  is  still  bound  and  determined  to  subject  to  criti- 
cal investigation,  but  on  the  general  presumption,  which  exists  in  all  such 
cases,  that  the  truth  of  what  is  obvious  to  common  sense  and  has  been  held 
from  the  beginning,  instead  of  being  the  exception  is  the  rule,  to  which 
the  flaws,  that  may  be  really  discovered  by  a  microscopic  criticism,  are  mere 
exceptions. 

That  Havernick  especially  has  not  been  governed  by  a  love  of  novelty 
or  opposition  is  apparent  from  the  fact  of  his  retaining  in  its  substance  Ge- 
senius's  division  and  arrangement  of  the  book,  while  he  rejects  the  gratuitous 
assumptions,  held  by  that  eminent  interpreter  in  common  with  his  predeces- 
sors. According  to  Havernick,  the  whole  book  consists  of  five  connected 
but  distinguishable  groups,  or  series  of  prophecies.  The  first  group  (ch. 
i-xii)  contains  Isaiah's  earliest  prophecies,  arranged  in  two  series,  easily 
distinguished  by  internal  marks.  The  first  six  chapters  have  a  general 
character,  without  certain  reference  to  any  particular  historical  occasion, 
which  accounts  for  the  endless  difference  of  opinion,  as  to  the  precise  date 
of  their  composition.  The  remaining  six  have  reference  to  particular  occa- 
sions, which  are  not  left  to  conjecture  but  distinctly  stated,  They  embrace 
the  principal  events  under  Ahaz,  and  illustrate  the  relation  of  the  Prophet 
to  them.  The  sixth  chapter,  though  descriptive  of  the  Prophet's  ordination, 
holds  its  proper  place,  as  an  addendum  to  the  foregoing  prophecies,  designed 
to  justify  their  dominant  tone  of  threatening  and  reproof.  The  second  group 
(ch.  xiii-xxiii)  contains  a  series  of  prophecies  against  certain  foreign  powers, 
showing  the  relation  of  the  heathen  world  to  the  theocracy,  and  followed  by 
a  sort  of  appendix  (ch.  xxiv-xxvii),  summing  up  the  foregoing  prophecies 
and  showing  the  results  of  their  fulfilment  to  the  end  of  time.  He  maintains 
the  genuineness  of  all  the  prophecies  in  this  division  and  the  correctness  of 
their  actual  position.  The  apparent  exception  in  ch.  xxn  he  accounts  for, 
by  supposing  that  Judah  is  there  represented  as  reduced  by  gross  iniquity  to 
the  condition  of  a  heathen  state.  Another  explanation,  no  less  natural,  and 
more  complete,  because  it  accounts  for  the  remarkable  prophecy  against  an 
individual  in  the  last  part  of  the  chapter,  is  afforded  by  the  supposition,  that 
Judah  is  there  considered  as  subject  to  a  foreign  and  probably  a  heathen 
influence,  viz.  that  of  Shebna.  (See  the  details  below,  p.  386.)  Haver- 
nick's  third  group  (ch.  xxviii-xxxm)  contains  prophecies  relating  to  a  par- 
ticular period  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  with  a  more  general  prospective  sequel 
(ch.  xxxiv,  xxxv),  as  in  the  second.  Here  again  he  examines  and  rejects 
the  various  arguments  adduced  by  modern  critics  to  disprove  the  genuineness 
of  certain  parts.  The  fourth  group  (ch.  xxxvi-xxxix)  describes  in  histo- 
rical form  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Prophet  at  a  later  period  of  the  reign 


INTRODUCTION.  lxvii 

of  Hezekiah.  Regarding  this  and  the  parallel  part  of  Second  Kings  as 
collateral  derivatives  from  a  historical  writing  of  Isaiah,  Havernick  is  led  by 
the  mention,  in  ch.  37:  38,  of  an  event  which  happened  after  the  supposed 
death  of  Isaiah,  to  ascribe  that  verse  and  the  insertion  of  these  chapters  to 
a  somewhat  later  hand.  He  maintains,  however,  that  so  far  from  being 
inappropriate,  they  constitute  a  necessary  link  between  the  third  group  and 
the  fifth  (ch.  xl-lxvi),  in  which  the  whole  result  of  his  prophetic  ministra- 
tions to  the  end  of  time  is  vividly  depicted. 

The  critical  and  philological  arguments  of  Havernick,  in  this  part 
of  his  work,  are  eminently  learned  and  ingenious,  highly  original  and  yet 
conservative  of  ancient  and  invaluable  truth.  A  reference  to  them  is 
the  more  important  here  because  they  came  into  my  hands  too  late  to 
influence  the  expositions  of  the  present  volume,  the  coincidence  between 
them,  as  to  principle  if  not  in  all  particular  conclusions,  being  only  the 
more  satisfactory  and  striking  upon  that  account.  The  same  remark  ap- 
plies, in  some  degree,  to  Drechsler's  Introduction,  which  may  be  consi- 
dered as  a  further  movement  in  the  same  direction,  not  occasioned  by  the 
other,  but  the  fruit  of  independent  labour  in  the  same  field  and  under  the 
same  influence.  It  is  certainly  an  interesting  and  instructive  fact,  that  in 
two  such  cases,  the  conviction  of  the  unity,  integrity,  and  uncorrupted  genu- 
ineness of  the  book  before  us,  even  as  to  its  arrangement  and  the  nexus  of 
the  parts,  should  have  been  reached  without  collusion,  by  a  thorough  sifting 
of  the  very  arguments  alleged  against  it  by  the  ablest  critics  of  the  past  and 
present  generation.  Drechsler's  idea  of  Isaiah  as  a  whole  differs  from 
Havernick's,  in  going  further  from  the  modern  theory,  retaining  less  of  its 
substratum,  the  hypothesis  of  different  collections,  and  ascribing  to  the  book, 
as  we  possess  it,  a  more  absolute  and  perfect  unity.  Drechsler  dismisses  the 
whole  question  with  respect  to  the  precise  date  of  particular  passages,  as 
equally  insoluble  and  unimportant ;  directs  attention  to  the  fact  that  through- 
out the  book  the  only  editor,  compiler,  or  arranger,  of  whom  any  trace  can 
be  discerned,  is  one  who  exercised  the  rights  of  an  author;  draws  from  this 
and  other  marks  of  an  internal  kind,  a  confirmation  of  the  old  opinion,  that 
the  form  and  the  contents  of  the  collection  are,  so  far  as  we  can  hope  to 
ascertain,  from  one  and  the  same  hand;  and  thenceforth  assumes  it  as  a 
principle  or  maxim,  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  date  of  any  passage 
as  originally  uttered,  we  have  no  need  or  authority  to  trace  it  further  back 
than  its  reduction  to  its  present  shape  by  the  original  author. 

With  respect  to  the  divisions  of  the  book,  his  theory  may  seem  at  first  sight 
artificial,  but  is  really  distinguished  by  simplicity  as  well  as  ingenuity.  He  sets 
out  by  assuming  two  great  crises  or  conjunctures  in  Isaiah's  ministry,  about 
which  all  his  prophecies  may  be  arranged.  The  first  is  the  invasion  in  the 
reign  of  Ahaz,  the  second  the  invasion  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.    These  he 


lxviii  INTRODUCTION. 

regards  as  the  centres  of  two  great  prophetic  schemes  or  systems,  forming  one 
harmonious  whole,  but  between  themselves  distinguished  by  the  prevalence 
of  threatening  and  reproof  in  one,  of  promise  and  consolation  in  the  other. 
To  each  of  these  great  critical  events  in  the  history  corresponds  a  central 
point  or  focus  in  the  prophecy,  from  which  in  both  directions  we  may  trace  a 
regular  connexion  in  the  book,  stretching  back  into  the  past  and  forward  into 
the  future,  in  the  way  of  preparation  on  the  one  hand  and  completion  on  the 
other.  The  focus  of  the  first  great  prophetic  scheme  he  fixes  in  the  seventh 
chapter,  that  of  the  other  in  the  thirty-sixth  and  thirty-seventh.  The  sixth 
is  a  direct  preparation  for  the  seventh ;  the  fifth  for  the  sixth ;  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth,  for  the  fifth  ;  the  first  is  a  general  introduction  to  the 
whole.  Then  on  the  other  side,  the  promises  and  threatenings  of  the  seventh 
chapter  are  repeated,  amplified,  and  varied,  first  with  respect  to  Judah  and 
Israel  in  ch.  vni-xn,  then  with  respect  to  foreign  powers  in  ch.  xin-xxin, 
and  lastly  in  a  general  summing  up  and  application  to  all  times  and  places 
in  ch.  xxiv-xxvii,  which  closes  the  first  system.  The  other  central  pro- 
phecy, in  ch.  xxxvi  and  xxxvn,  is  likewise  introduced  by  a  preparatory 
series  (ch.  xxvm-xxxv),  all  relating  to  Sennacherib's  invasion,  and  on  the 
other  hand  carried  out,  first  historically  (ch.  xxxvm,  xxxix),  then  prophet- 
ically (ch.  xl-xlvi)  to  the  end  of  time. 

However  fanciful  or  German  this  hypothesis  may  seem,  it  cannot  be 
attentively  considered  without  giving  rise  to  this  reflection,  that  a  book 
affording  the  materials  and  conditions  even  for  a  fanciful  device,  of  which 
unity  and  symmetry  are  essential  elements,  cannot  well  be  a. farrago  of  dis- 
cordant parts,  produced  at  random  and  combined  by  chance.  The  opposite 
hypothesis,  if  once  assumed,  can  be  applied  with  ease  to  any  case,  however 
clear  the  signs  of  unity  may  be,  for  the  details  of  proof  are  all  involved  in 
the  primary  assumption ;  but  it  is  not  quite  so  easy  to  maintain  the  hypo- 
thesis of  harmony  where  harmony  does  not  exist.  It  requires  little'  inge- 
nuity or  learning  to  discover  and  exaggerate  appearances  of  discord  even 
where  is  agreement ;  but  to  create  the  appearance  of  agreement  in  the 
midst  of  discord  is  beyond  the  reach  of  any  sophistry  or  eloquence  except 
the  most  consummate.  The  truth,  however,  seems  to  be,  that  Drechsler's 
theory,  however  fanciful  it  may  appear,  especially  as  stated  by  himself,  is 
but  another  exhibition  of  the  truth  maintained  by  Havernick,  to  wit,  that 
the  book  before  us  is,  in  form  as  well  as  substance,  the  original  and  genuine 
production  of  Isaiah. 

The  view  which  has  now  been  taken  of  the  progress  of  opinion,  with 
respect  to  the  arrangement  and  division  of  the  book  before  us,  first  its  down- 
ward progress  from  a  firm  traditional  belief  to  the  extreme  of  a  lawless  and 
irrational  skepticism,  and  then  its  upward  course  by  dint  of  argument  to  an 
enlightened  and  confirmed  historical  assurance,  makes  it  almost  impossible 


INTRODUCTION.  lxix 

to  close  without  a  glance  at  the  ulterior  stages  which  may  yet  remain  of 
this  restorative  process.     Considering   the   principle  on  which  it  has  been 
thus   far  carried  on,  the   proved   unsoundness  of  the  contrary  hypothesis, 
and  the  analogy  of  all  like  cases,  it  might  plausibly  be  stated,  as  the  pro- 
bable result  of  this  return   to  experience  and   common  sense,  that  men 
whose  eyes  have  thus  been  opened  will  eventually  throw  to  the  moles  and 
to  the  bats  the  cherished  figment,   upon  which  a  large  part  of  their  errors 
have  been  built,  to  wit,  the  groundless  assumption,  that  the  sacred  writings 
of  the  Jews  were   passed   from  hand   to   hand  by  private  circulation   and 
transcription  like  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics,  accidentally  collected  into 
volumes,  mixed  together,  mutilated,  magnified  by  forgery  or  ignorant  inter- 
polation, and  at  last  sent  down  to  us,  to  be  the  subject  of  empirical  decisions 
without  number  or  agreement.     Or  if  this  be  gone  already,  it  may  be  the 
next  step  to  discard  the  notion,  not  monopolized  by  any  class  or  school  of 
critics,  that  the  several   parts  of  such  a  book  as  that  before  us  were,  and 
must  have  been,  delivered  as  set  speeches   or  occasional  discourses,  then 
reduced  to  writing  one  by  one,  and  put  together  by  degrees,  or  even  by  a 
later  hand  and  in  a  distant  age.     On  this  gratuitous  assumption  rests  a  large 
part  of  the  most  perplexing  difficulties  which  attend  the  critical  interpreta- 
tion  of  Isaiah,  and  which  all  would   disappear  if  we  could  see  sufficient 
reason  to  conclude,  that   the   book  is   a  continuous  production  of  a  single 
mind,   at  one  great  effort,  long  protracted,  it  may  be,  but  not  entirely  sus- 
pended, or  renewed  from  time  to  time  upon  occasion.     The  mention  of  dis- 
tinct events  and  dates  no  more  establishes  the  fact  here  questioned,  than  the 
sweep  of  Paul's  chronology,  in  his  epistle  to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  proves 
that  it  was  written  piecemeal  from  the  time  of  his  conversion.     All  analogy, 
both  scriptural  and  general,  without  some  countervailing  reason  for  believing 
otherwise,  would  favour  the  conclusion  that  a  book  like  that  before  us  was 
produced  by  a  continuous  effort.     But   besides  this   negative  presumption, 
we  have  one  distinct  example  of  the  very  thing  proposed,  or  rather  two,  for 
it  is  matter  of  record  that  the  Prophet  Jeremiah  twice  reduced  to  writing,  by 
divine  command,  the  prophecies  of  many  years,  (see  Jer.  36 :  2,  4,  28,  32,) 
or  rather  of  his  whole  preceding  ministry.     If  this  be  possible  in  one  case,  it 
is  possible  in  others.     If  we  have  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Jeremiah's 
constant  inspiration  was  sufficient  to  ensure  the  truth  of  such  a  record,  or 
that  he  was  specially  inspired  for  the  very  purpose,  we  need  have  none  in 
supposing  that  Isaiah,  in  the  last  years  of  his  ministry,  recorded  the  whole 
series  of  his  prophecies,  and  left  them  upon  everlasting  record,  as  we  have 
them  now.     To  us  it  matters  little  whether  he  recalled  exactly  the  precise 
words  uttered  upon  each  occasion,  or  received  by  a  new  revelation  such  a 
summary  as  God  was  pleased  to  substitute  instead  of  it.     Our  concern  is 


lxx  INTRODUCTION. 

not  with  prophecies  now  lost,  whether  written  or  oral,  but  with  those  now 
extant  and  recorded  for  our  learning.  It  is  these,  and  only  these,  that  we 
interpret,  it  is  only  these  that  can  command  our  faith.  The  supposition 
now  suggested,  while  it  would  preclude  a  thousand  petty  questions  gendered 
by  the  neological  hypothesis,  would  also,  when  combined  with  the  tradi- 
tional devotion  of  the  Jews  to  the  preservation  of  their  scriptures,  furnish 
a  solid  ground  for  the  belief,  that  what  Isaiah  wrote  three  thousand  years  ago 
we  read  to-day,  without  resorting  to  the  needless  supposition  of  a  miracle,  or 
shutting  out  the  possibility  of  minor  deviations  from  the  autograph  in  every 
extant  manuscript.  All  that  we  needed  we  should  have,  to  wit,  a  rational 
assurance  that  the  book,  as  a  book,  without  descending  to  enumerate  its  let- 
ters, is  precisely  what  it  was,  in  form  and  substance,  when  originally 
written. 

If  this  supposition  were  assumed  as  the  basis  of  our  exposition,  it  would 
materially  modify  its  form,  in  some  respects,  by  putting  an  end  to  the  accus- 
tomed method  of  division  into  prophecies  with  separate  dates,  and  introduc- 
ing the  same  method  which  is  practised  with  respect  to  Paul's  epistles,  or 
the  undivided  prophecies,  like  that  of  Hosea.  The  conventional  division  into 
verses  and  chapters  (the  latter  wholly  modern  and  in  several  instances 
absurd)  might  be  retained  as  a  convenient  mode  of  reference ;  but  the  exe- 
getical  division  of  the  first  part  of  Isaiah  would  no  longer  be  historical  or 
critical,  but  merely  analytical  and  logical,  as  in  the  present  universal  mode  of 
dealing  with  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  the  book.  In  the  exposition 
of  the  prophecies  which  occupy  the  present  volume,  the  usual  distinctive 
plan  has  been  adopted,  partly  in  deference  to  established  custom  and  the 
authority  of  other  writers,  partly  because  the  ideas  just  expressed  were  not 
assumed  a  priori,  as  an  arbitrary  basis  of  interpretation,  but  deduced  from 
it  a  posteriori,  as  its  actual  result.  In  the  mean  time,  it  will  be  observed 
that  various  opportunities  have  been  embraced,  to  check  and  counteract  the 
tendency  to  needless  or  excessive  subdivision. 

The  arrangement  of  the  Commentary  is  as  follows.  The  usual  divi- 
sion into  chapters  is  retained,  as  being  universally  familiar  and  in  general 
convenient.  The  analysis  of  these  divisions,  and  other  preliminary  state- 
ments and  discussions,  are  prefixed  as  special  introductions  to  the  chapters. 
The  literal  translation,  sometimes  combined  with  an  explanatory  paraphrase, 
is  followed  by  the  necessary  comments  and  the  statement  of  the  different 
opinions.  In  the  order  of  the  topics,  some  regard  has  been  had  to  their 
comparative  importance,  but  without  attempting  to  secure  a  perfect  uni- 
formity in  this  respect,  which,  if  it  were  attainable,  would  probably  add 
nothing  to  the  force  or  clearness  of  the  exposition. 

The  prophecies  expounded  in  the  present  volume  may  be  considered 


INTRODUCTION.  lxxi 

introductory,  in  various  respects,  to  the  remainder  of  the  book,  not  only 
because  earlier  in  date,  and  relating  for  the  most  part  to  a  nearer  futurity, 
but  also  as  affording  the  only  satisfactory  data,  upon  which  the  exposition  of 
the  rest  can  be  founded.  The  Later  Prophecies,  extending  from  the  fortieth 
chapter  to  the  end,  are  abundantly  sufficient,  both  in  quantity  and  quality, 
to  constitute  the  subject  of  another  volume. 


COMMENTARY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  design  of  this  chapter  is  to  show  the  connexion  between  the  sins 
and  sufferings  of  God's  people,  and  the  necessity  of  further  judgments,  as 
means  of  purification  and  deliverance. 

The  popular  corruption  is  first  exhibited  as  the  effect  of  alienation  from 

God,  and  as  the  cause  of  national  calamities,  vs.  2-9.     It  is  then  exhibited 

as  coexisting  with  punctilious  exactness  in  religious  duties,  and  as  rendering 

them  worthless,  vs.  10-20.     It  is  finally  exhibited  in  twofold  contrast,  first 

with  a  former  state  of  things,  and  then  with  one  still  future,  to  be  brought  about 

by  the  destruction  of  the  wicked,  and  especially  of  wicked  rulers,  vs.  21-31. 

The  first  part  of  the  chapter  describes  the  sin  and  then  the  suffering  of 

the  people.     The  former  is  characterized  as  filial  ingratitude,  stupid  incon- 

sideration,  habitual  transgression,  contempt  of  God,  and  alienation  from  him, 

vs.  2-4.     The  suffering  is  first  represented  by  the  figure  of  disease  and 

wounds,  and  then  in  literal  terms  as  the  effect  of  an  invasion,  by  which  the 

nation  was  left  desolate,  and  only  saved  by  God's  regard  for  his  elect  from 

the  total  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  vs.  5-9. 

The  second  part  is  connected  with  the  first  by  the  double  allusion  to 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  with  which  one  closes  and  the  other  opens.  In  this 
part  the  Prophet  shows  the  utter  inefficacy  of  religious  rites  to  counteract 
the  natural  effect  of  their  iniquities,  and  then  exhorts  them  to  the  use  of  the 
true  remedy.  Under  the  former  head,  addressing  them  as  similar  in  charac- 
ter to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  he  describes  their  sacrifices  as  abundant  and 
exact,  but  not  acceptable  ;  their  attendance  at  the  temple  as  punctual, 
and  yet  insulting ;  their  bloodless  offerings  as  abhorrent,  and  their  holy 
days  as  wearisome  and  hateful  on  account  of  their  iniquities ;  their  very 
prayers  as  useless,  because  their  hands  were  stained  with  blood,  vs.  10-15. 
As  a  necessary  means  of  restoration  to  God's  favour,  he  exhorts  them  to  for- 
sake their  evil  courses  and  to  exercise  benevolence  and  justice,  assuring  them 
that  God  was  willing  to  forgive  them  and  restore  the  advantages  which  they 
had  forfeited  by  sin,  but  at  the  same  time  resolved  to  punish  the  impenitent 
transgressor,  vs.  16-20. 

1 


2  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 

The  transition  from  the  second  to  the  third  part  is  abrupt,  and  introduced 
by  a  pathetic  exclamation.  In  this  part  the  Prophet  compares  Israel  as  it  is 
with  what  it  has  been  and  with  what  it  shall  be.  In  the  former  comparison, 
he  employs  two  metaphors,  each  followed  by  a  literal  explanation  of  its  mean- 
ing ;  that  of  a  faithful  wife  become  a  harlot,  and  that  of  adulterated  wine 
and  silver,  both  expressive  of  a  moral  deterioration,  with  special  reference  to 
magistrates  and  rulers,  vs.  21-23.  In  the  other  comparison,  the  coming 
judgments  are  presented  in  the  twofold  aspect  of  purification  and  deliverance 
to  the  church,  and  of  destruction  to  its  wicked  members.  The  Prophet  sees 
the  leading  men  of  Israel  destroyed,  first  as  oppressors,  to  make  room  for 
righteous  rulers  and  thus  save  the  state,  then  as  idolaters  consumed  by  that 
in  which  they  trusted  for  protection,  vs.  24-31. 

This  chapter  is  referred  by  Grotius  and  Cocceius  to  the  reign  of  Uzziah, 
by  Lowth  and  De  Wette  to  the  reign  of  Jotham,  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald  to 
the  reign  of  Ahaz,  by  Jarchi  and  Vitringa  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  This 
disagreement  has  arisen  from  assuming  that  it  must  be  a  prediction  in  the 
strict  sense,  and  have  reference  to  one  event  or  series  of  events  exclusively, 
while  in  the  prophecy  itself  there  are  no  certain  indications  of  the  period 
referred  to.  The  only  points  which  seem  to  furnish  any  data  for  determin- 
ing the  question,  are  the  invasion  mentioned  in  v.  7,  and  the  idolatry  referred 
to  in  vs.  28-31.*  But  the  former  is  almost  equally  applicable  to  the  Syrian 
invasion  under  Ahaz  and  the  Assyrian  under  Hezekiah.  And  the  idolatry  is 
mentioned  in  connexion  with  a  punctilious  regard  to  the  forms  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  evident  that  the  chapter  contains  one  continu- 
ous coherent  composition.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  this  prophecy 
belongs  to  the  class  already  mentioned  (in  the  Introduction)  as  exhibiting  a 
sequence  of  events,  or  providential  scheme,  which  might  be  realized  in  more 
than  one  emergency ;  not  so  much  a  prediction  as  a  prophetic  lesson  with 
respect  to  the  effects  which  certain  causes  must  infallibly  produce.  Such  a 
discourse  would  be  peculiarly  appropriate  as  an  introduction  to  the  prophecies 
which  follow ;  and  its  seeming  inconsistences  are  all  accounted  for,  by  simply 
supposing  that  it  was  written  for  this  purpose  about  the  time  of  Sennache- 
rib's invasion  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  and  that  in  it  the 
Prophet  takes  a  general  survey  of  the  changes  which  the  church  had  under- 
gone since  the  beginning  of  his  public  ministry. 

V.  1.  This  is  a  general  title  of  the  whole  book  or  one  of  its  larger  divi- 
sions (ch.  1-39  or  1-12),  defining  its  character,  author,  subject,  and  date. 
The  Vision  (supernatural  perception,  inspiration,  revelation,  prophecy,  here 
put  collectively  for  Prophecies)  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz,  which  he  saw 
(perceived,  received  by  inspiration)  concerning  Judah  (the  kingdom  of 
the  two  tribes,  which  adhered  to  the  theocracy  after  the  revolt  of  Jero- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  3 

boam)  and  Jerusalem  (its  capital,  the  chosen  seat  of  the   true  religion), 

in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  Hezekiah,  kings  of  J  ml  ah. — The 
Septuagint  renders  b?  against}  but  as  all  the  propheries  are  not  of  an  unfa- 
vourable character,  it  is  better  to  retain  the  wider  sense  concerning. — Alien 
Ezra  and  Almrbeiiel  regard  this  as  the  title  of  the  first  chapter  only,  and  to 
meet  the  objection  that  a  single  prophecy  would  not  have  been  referred  to 
four  successive  reigns,  instead  of  which  he  saw  read  who  satv  (i.  e.  was  a 
seer)  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  etc.  But  the  tenses  of  ntn  are  not  thus  abso- 
lutely used,  and  the  same  words  occur  in  ch.  2:1,  where  the  proposed  con- 
struction is  impossible. — Vitringa's  supposition  that  the  sentence  originally 
consisted  of  the  first  clause  only,  and  that  the  yWfrwas  added  at  a  later  date 
to  make  it  applicable  as  a  general  title,  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and  opens  the 
door  to  endless  license  of  conjecture.  Hendewerk  goes  further,  and  calls  in 
question  the  antiquity  and  genuineness  of  the  whole  verse,  but  without  the 
least  authority.  According  to  ancient  and  oriental  usage  it  was  probably 
prefixed  by  Isaiah  himself  to  a  partial  or  complete  collection  of  his  prophe- 
cies. To  the  objection  that  "p'Tri  is  singular,  the  answer  is,  that  it  is  used 
collectively  because  it  has  no  plural,  and  appears  as  the  title  of  this  same 
book  or  another  in  2  Chr.  32  :  32.  To  the  objection  that  the  prophecies  are 
not  all  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  the  answer  is,  a  potiori  fit  denomi- 
nate, to  which  may  be  added  that  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  ten  tribes 
and  to  foreign  powers  owe  their  place  in  this  collection  to  their  bearing, 
more  or  less  direct,  upon  the  interests  of  Judah.  To  the  objection  that  the 
first  chapter  has  no  other  title,  we  may  answer  that  it  needs  no  other,  partly 
because  it.  is  sufficiently  distinguished  from  what  follows  by  the  title  of  the 
second,  partly  because  it  is  not  so  much  the  first  in  a  series  of  prophecies 
as  a  general  preface.  With  respect  to  the  names  Isaiah  and  Amoz,  and  the 
chronology  of  this  verse,  see  the  Introduction. 

V.  2.  The  Prophet  first  describes  the  moral  state  of  Judah,  vs.  2-4, 
and  then  the  miseries  arising  from  it,  vs.  5-9.  To  the  former  he  invites 
attention  by  summoning  the  universe  to  hear  the  Lord's  complaint  against 
his  people,  who  are  first  charged  with  filial  ingratitude.  Hear,  O  heavens, 
and  give  ear,  O  earth,  as  witnesses  and  judges,  and  as  being  less  insensible 
yourselves  than  men,  for  Jehovah  speaks,  not  man.  Sons  I  have  reared 
and  brought  up,  literally  made  great  and  made  high,  and  they,  with  emphasis 
on  the  pronoun  which  is  otherwise  superfluous,  even  they  have  revolted  from 
me,  or  rebelled  against  me,  not  merely  in  a  general  sense  by  sinning,  but  in 
a  special  sense  by  violating  that  peculiar  covenant  which  bound  God  to  his 
people.  It  is  in  reference  to  this  bond  and  to  the  conjugal  relation  which 
the  Scriptures  represent  God  as  sustaining  to  his  church  or  people,  that  its 
constituent  members  are  here  called  his  children. — Vitringa  and  others  un 


4  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 

derstand  heaven  and  earth  as  meaning  angels  and  men ;  but  although  these 
may  be  included,  it  is  plain  that  the  direct  address  is  to  the  frame  of  nature, 
as  in  Deut.  32  :  1,  from  which  the  form  of  expression  is  borrowed. — Knobel 
and  other  recent  writers  exclude  the  idea  of  bearing  witness  altogether,  and 
suppose  heaven  and  earth  to  be  called  upon  to  listen,  simply  because  Jeho- 
vah is  the  speaker.  But  the  two  ideas  are  entirely  compatible,  and  the 
first  is  recommended  by  the  analogy  of  Deut.  30:  19,  and  by  its  poetical 
effect. — Cocceius  takes  TOW*  in  the  sense  of  bringing  up,  but  iwattti  in  that 
of  exalting  to  peculiar  privileges,  which  disturbs  the  metaphor,  and  violates 
the  usage  of  the  two  verbs,  which  are  elsewhere  joined  as  simple  synonymes. 
(See  ch.  23  :  7.  Ezek.  31  :*4.)  Both  terms  are  so  chosen  as  to  be  applica- 
ble, in  a  lower  sense,  to  children,  and  in  a  higher  sense,  to  nations. — The 
English  Bible  and  many  other  versions  read  Jehovah  has  spoken,  which 
seems  to  refer  to  a  previous  revelation,  or  to  indicate  a  mere  repetition  of  his 
words,  whereas  he  is  himself  introduced  as  speaking.  The  preterite  may  be 
here  used  to  express  the  present,  for  the  purpose  of  suggesting  that  he  did 
not  thus  speak  for  the  first  time.     Compare  Heb.  1:1. 

V.  3.    Having  tacitly  compared  the  insensible  Jews  with  the  inanimate 
creation,  he  now  explicitly  compares  them  with  the  brutes,  selecting  for  that 
purpose  two  which  were  especially  familiar  as  domesticated  animals,  sub- 
jected to  man's  power  and  dependent  on  him  for  subsistence,  and  at  the 
same  time  as  proverbially  stupid,  inferiority  to  which  must  therefore  be  pe- 
culiarly disgraceful.      The  ox  Tcnoweth  his  owner  and  the  ass  his  master's 
crib  or  feeding  place.     Israel,  the  chosen  people,  as  a  whole,  without  regard 
to  those  who  had  seceded  from  it,  doth  not  know,  my  people  doth  not  con- 
sider, pay  attention  or  take  notice.     Like  the  ox  and  the  ass,  Israel  had  a 
master,  upon  whom  he  was  dependent,  and  to  whom  he  owed  obedience ; 
but,  unlike  them,  he  did  not  recognize  and  would  not  serve  his  rightful 
sovereign  and  the  author  of  his  mercies. — The  Septuagint  supplies  me  after 
know  and  consider  (^s  ovx  eyrco  . . . .  fiE  ov  gvptjxev).     The  Vulgate,  followed 
by  Michaelis,  Lowth,  and  others,  supplies  me  after  the  first  verb,  but  leaves 
the  other  indefinite.     Gesenius,  De  Wette,  and   Hendewerk  supply  him, 
referring  to  owner  and  master.     Clericus,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit  take  the  verbs 
in  the  absolute  and  general  sense  of  having  knowledge  and  being  considerate, 
which  is  justified  by  usage,  but  gives  less  point  and  precision  to  the  sentence. 

V.  4.  As  the  foregoing  verses  render  prominent  the  false  position  of 
Israel  with  respect  to  God,  considered  first  as  a  father  and  then  as  a  master 
(comp.  Mai.  1 :  6),  so  this  brings  into  view  their  moral  state  in  general,  re- 
sulting from  that  alienation,  and  still  represented  as  inseparable  from  it.  The 
Prophet  speaks  again  in  his  own  person,  and  expresses  wonder,  pity,  and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  5 

indignation  at  the  state  to  which  his  people  had  reduced  themselves.     Ah, 
sinful  nation,  literally  nation  sinning,  i.  e.  habitually,  which  is  the  force  here 
of  the  active  participle,  people  heavy  with  iniquity,  weighed  down  by  guilt 
as  an  oppressive  burden,  a  seed  of  evil-doers,  i.  e.  the  offspring  of  wicked  pa- 
rents, sons  corrupting  themselves,  i.  e.  doing  worse  than  their  fathers,  in  which 
sense  the  same  verb  is  used  Judges  2:19.     (Calvin  :  filii  degeneres.)    The 
evil-doers  are  of  course  not  the  Patriarchs  or  Fathers  of  the  nation,  but  the 
intervening  wicked  generations.     As  the  first  clause  tells  us  what  they  were, 
so  the  second  tells  us  what  they  did,  by  what  acts^hey  had  merited  the 
character  just  given.     They  have  forsaken  Jehovah,  a  phrase  descriptive  of 
iniquity  in  general,  but  peculiarly  expressive  of  the  breach  of  covenant  obli- 
gations.    They  have  treated  ivith  contempt  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  a  title 
almost  peculiar  to  Isaiah,  and  expressing  a  twofold  aggravation  of  their  sin  ; 
first,  that  he  was  infinitely  excellent ;  and  then,  that  he  was  theirs,  their  own 
peculiar  God.     They  are  alienated  back  again.    The  verb  denotes  estrange- 
ment from  God,  the  adverb  retrocession  or  backsliding  into  a  former  state. — 
By  a  seed  of  evil-doers  most  writers  understand  a  race  or  generation  of  evil- 
doers, and  by  children  corrupting  (their  ways  or  themselves,  as  Aben  Ezra 
explains  it)  nothing  more  than  wicked  men.     Gesenius  and  Henderson  ren- 
der bTOWithj  corrupt,  Barnes  corrupting  others.     The  sense  of  mischievous, 
destructive,  is  given  by  Luther,  and  the  vague  one  of  wicked  by  the  Vulgate. 
The  other  explanation,  which  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  parents,  takes  •*} 
and  D^sa  in  their  proper  meaning,  makes  the  parallelism  of  the  clauses  more 
complete,  and  converts  a  tautology  into  a  climax. — The  sense  of  blasphem- 
ing given  to  ffiU  by  the  Vulgate  and  Luther,  and  that  of  provoking  to  anger 
by  the  Septuagint,  Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  and  others,  are  rejected  by  the  mod- 
ern lexicographers  for  that  of  despising  or  treating  with  contempt.     The 
last  two  are  combined  by  Junius  (contemtim  irritaverunt)  and  the  old  French 
Version  (ils  ont  irrite  parmepris). — The  Niphal  form  Vty  is  by  most  writers 
treated  as  simply  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  Kal — <  they  have  departed  ;' 
but  the  usage  of  the  participles  active  and  passive  (Ps.  69 :  9)  in  the  sense 
of  strange  and  estranged  is  in  favour  of  the  interpretation  given  by  Aquila 
and  Theodotion,  a7if]XXoTQic6&r]aav  elg  ret  bniaca. 

V.  5.  To  the  description  of  their  moral  state,  beginning  and  ending  with 
apostasy  from  God,  the  Prophet  now  adds  a  description  of  the  consequences, 
vs.  5-9.  This  he  introduces  by  an  expostulation  on  their  mad  perseverance 
in  transgression,  notwithstanding  the  extremities  to  which  it  had  reduced 
them.  Whereupon,  i.  e.  on  what  part  of  the  body,  can  ye  be  stricken,  smit- 
ten, punished,  any  more,  that  ye  add  revolt,  departure  or  apostasy  from  God, 
i.  e.  revolt  more  and  more  ?  Already  the  whole  head  is  sick  and  the  whole 
heart  faint. — The  same  sense  is  attained,  but  in  a  less  striking  form,  by 


6  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 

reading,  with  Hitzig,  why,  to  what  purpose,  will  ye  be  smitten  any  morel 
why  continue  to  revolt  1  If  their  object  was  to  make  themselves  miserable, 
it  was  already  accomplished. — Calvin,  followed  by  the  English  version  and 
others,  gives  a  different  turn  to  the  interrogation :  Why  should  ye  be  smitten 
any  more  1  of  what  use  is  it  ?  ye  will  revolt  more  and  more.  But  the 
reason  thus  assigned  for  their  ceasing  to  be  smitten  is  wholly  different  from 
that  given  in  the  last  clause  and  amplified  in  the  following  verse,  viz.  that 
they  were  already  faint  and  covered  with  wounds.  The  Vulgate  version 
(super  quo  percutiemini  ?)  is  retained  by  Luther,  Lowth,  Gesenius,  and 
others.  The  very  same  metaphor  occurs  more  than  once  in  classical  poetry. 
Lowth  quotes  examples  from  Euripides  and  Ovid  (vix  habet  in  nobis  jam 
nova  plaga  locum). — Hendewerk  supposes  the  people  to  be  asked  where 
they  can  be  smitten  with  effect,  i.  e.  what  kind  of  punishment  will  do  them 
good ;  but  this  is  forced,  and  does  not  suit  the  context.  Ewald  repeats 
whereupon  before  the  second  verb  :  '  upon  what  untried  transgression  build- 
ing will  ye  still  revolt  ?'  which  is  needless  and  unnatural. — Instead  of  the 
whole  head,  the  whole  heart,  Winer  and  Hitzig  render  every  head  and  every 
heart,  because  the  nouns  have  not  the  article.  But  see  ch.  9:  11.  Ps. 
Ill:  1 .  The  omission  of  the  article  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  licenses  of 
poetry.  The  context  too  requires  that  the  words  should  be  applied  to  the 
head  and  heart  of  the  body  mentioned  in  v.  6,  viz.  the  body  politic. — The 
head  and  heart  do  not  denote  different  ranks  (Hendewerk),  or  the  inward  and 
outward  state  of  the  community  (Umbreit),  but  are  mentioned  as  well-known 
and  important  parts  of  the  body,  to  which  the  church  or  nation  had  been 
likened. — Gesenius  explains  ^nb  to  mean  in  sicJcness,  Ewald  (inclined)  to 
sickness,  Knobel  (belonging)  to  sickness,  Clericus'  (given  up)  to  sickness, 
Rosenmiiller  (abiit)  in  morbum.  The  general  sense  is  plain  from  the  parallel 
term  TO  faint  or  languid  from  disease. 

V.  6.  The  idea  suggested  at  the  beginning  of  v.  5,  that  there  was  no 
more  room  for  further  strokes,  is  now  carried  out  with  great  particularity. 
From  the  sole  of  the  foot  and  (i.  e.  even)  to  the  head  (a  common  scriptural 
expression  for  the  body  in  its  whole  extent)  there  is  not  in  it  (the  people,  or 
in  him  i.  e.  Judah,  considered  as  a  body)  a  sound  place ;  (it  is)  wound 
and  bruise  (fiwXmp,  vibex,  the  tumour  produced  by  stripes)  and  fresh  stroke. 
The  wounds  are  then  described  as  not  only  grievous  but  neglected.  They 
have  not  been  pressed,  and  they  have  not  been  bound  or  bandaged,  and  it  has 
not  been  mollified  with  ointment,  all  familiar  processes  of  ancient  surgery. — 
Calvin  argues  that  the  figures  in  this  verse  and  the  one  preceding  cannot  re- 
fer to  moral  corruption,  since  the  Prophet  himself  afterwards  explains  them 
as  descriptive  of  external  sufferings.  But  he  seems  to  have  intended  to  keep 
up  before  his  readers  the  connexion  between  suffering  and  sin,  and  therefore 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 


to  have  chosen  terms  suited  to  excite  associations  both  of  pain  and  corrup- 
tion.— The  last  v« 'H>,  which  is  singular  and  feminine,  is  supposed  by  Justus 
and  J.  H.  Michaeli-  to  agree  with  the  nouns  distributively,  as  the  others  do 
collectively  :  <  none  of  them  is  mollified  with  ointment.'  Ewald  and  Umbreit 
connect  it  with  the  last  noun  exclusively.  All  the  verbs  are  rendered  in  the 
singular  by  Cocceius  and  Lowth,  all  in  the  plural  by  Vitringa  and  J.  D. 
Michaelis.  The  most  probable  solution  is  that  proposed  by  Knobel,  who 
takes  ::-  indefinitely,  '  it  has  not  been  softened/  i.  e.  no  one  has  softened, 
like  the  Latin  vcntum  est  for  <  some  one  came.'  This  construction,  although 
foreign  from  our  idiom,  is  not  uncommon  in  Hebrew. — hwiq  riss  is  not  a 
running  or  putrefying  sore  (Eng.  Vers.  Barnes),  but  a  recently  inflicted 
stroke. — The  singular  nouns  may  be  regarded  as  collectives,  or,  with  better 
effect,  as  denoting  that  the  body  was  one  wound,  &c. — The  suffix  in  ia  can- 
not refer  to  H^  a  understood  (Henderson),  which  would  require  na . — cr~ 
may  be  an  abstract  meaning  soundness  (LXX.  oXoxlr^ia) ,  but  is  more  proba- 
bly a  noun  of  place  from  Min . 

V.  7.  Thus  far  the  sufferings  of  the  people  have  been  represented  by 
strong  figures,  giving  no  intimation  of  their  actual  form,  or  of  the  outward 
causes  which  produced  them.  But  now  the  Prophet  brings  distinctly  into 
view  foreign  invasion  as  the  instrument  of  vengeance,  and  describes  the  coun- 
try as  already  desolated  by  it.  The  absence  of  verbs  in  the  first  clause  gives 
great  rapidity  and  life  to  the  description.  Your  land  (including  town  and 
country,  which  are  afterwards  distinctly  mentioned)  a  waste !  Your  towns 
(including  cities  and  villages  of  every  size)  burnt  with  fire !  Your  ground 
(including  its  produce),  i.  e.  as  to  your  ground,  before  you  (in  your  presence, 
but  beyond  your  reach)  strangers  (are)  devouring  it,  and  a  waste  (it  is  a 
waste)  like  the  overthrow  of  strangers,  i.  e.  as  foreign  foes  are  wont  to  waste 
a  country,  in  which  they  have  no  interest,  and  for  which  they  have  no  pity. 
(Vulg.  sicut  in  vastitate  hostili.) — As  n'nt  often  includes  the  idea  of  stran- 
gers to  God  and  the  true  religion,  and  as  H2en^  in  every  other  instance 
means  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  Hitzig  and  Ewald  adopt 
Kimchi's  explanation  of  this  clause,  as  containing  an  allusion  to  that  event, 
which  is  the  great  historical  type  of  total  destruction  on  account  of  sin,  often 
referred  to  elsewhere,  and  in  this  very  context,  two  verses  below.  This  ex- 
position, though  ingenious,  is  unnecessary,  and  against  it  lies  almost  the 
whole  weight  of  exegetical  authority. — Saadias  explains  e*^t  not  as  a  plural 
but  a  singular  noun  derived  from  cnt  to  flow  or  overflow,  in  which  he  is 
followed  by  Doderlein  and  Lowth  ('as  if  destroyed  by  an  inundation.') 
But  no  such  noun  occurs  elsewhere,  and  it  is  most  improbable  that  two 
nouns,  wholly  different  in  meaning  yet  coincident  in  fonm,  would  be  used  in 
this  one  sentence. 


8  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  I. 

V.  8.  The  extent  of  the  desolation  is  expressed  by  comparing  the 
church  or  nation  to  a  watch-shed  in  a  field  or  vineyard,  far  from  other  habi- 
tations, and  forsaken  after  the  ingathering.  And  the  daughter  of  Zion,  i.  e. 
the  people  of  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  considered  as  the  capital  of  Judah,  and 
therefore  representing  the  whole  nation,  is  left,  not  forsaken,  but  left  over  or 
behind  as  a  survivor,  like  a  booth,  a  temporary  covert  of  leaves  and  branches, 
in  a  vineyard,  like  a  lodge  in  a  melon-field,  like  a  watched  city,  i.  e.  watched 
by  friends  and  foes,  besieged  and  garrisoned,  and  therefore  insulated,  cut  off 
from  all  communication  with  the  country. — Interpreters,  almost  without 
exception,  explain  daughter  of  Zion  to  mean  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and 
suppose  the  extent  of  desolation  to  be  indicated  by  the  metropolis  alone 
remaining  unsubdued.  But  on  this  supposition  they  are  forced  to  explain 
how  a  besieged  city  could  be  like  a  besieged  city,  either  by  saying  that 
Jerusalem  only  suffered  as  if  she  were  besieged  (Ewald)  ;  or  by  taking  the 
2  as  a  caph  veritatis  expressing  not  resemblance  but  identity,  '  like  a  be- 
sieged city  as  she  is '  (Gesen.  ad  loc.  Henderson)  ;  or  by  reading  '  so  is  the 
besieged  city '  (Gesen.  Lex.  Man.)  ;  or  by  gratuitously  taking  iryoB  w  in 
the  sense  of  '  turris  custodiae '  or  watch-tower  (Tingstad.  Hitzig.  Gesen. 
Thes.).  If,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  daughter  of  Zion  primarily  signifies 
the  people  of  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  and  the  city  only  by  a  transfer  of  the 
figure,  it  is  better  to  retain  the  former  meaning  in  a  case  where  departure 
from  it  is  not  only  needless  but  creates  a  difficulty  in  the  exposition.  Ac- 
cording to  Hengstenberg  (Comm.  on  Psalm  9:  15),  daughter  of  Zion 
means  the  daughter  Zion,  as  city  of  Rome  means  the  city  Rome,  But 
even  granting  this,  the  church  or  nation  may  at  least  as  naturally  be  called 
a  daughter,  i.  e.  virgin  or  young  woman,  as  a  city.  That  Jerusalem  is  not 
called  the  daughter  of  Zion  from  its  local  situation  on  that  mountain,  is  clear 
from  the  analogous  phrases  daughter  of  Tyre,  daughter  of  Babyon,  where 
no  such  explanation  is  admissible. — The  meaning  saved,  preserved,  which 
is  put  upon  rnsixs  by  Koppe,  Rosenmuller,  Maurer,  and  Gesenius  in  his 
Commentary,  seems  inappropriate  in  a  description  of  extreme  desolation,  but 
does  not  materially  affect  the  interpretation  of  the  passage. 

V.  9.  The  idea'of  a  desolation  almost  total  is  expressed  in  other  words, 
and  with  an  intimation  that  the  narrow  escape  was  owing  to  God's  favour 
for  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  who  still  existed  in  the 
Jewish  church*  Except  Jehovah  of  Hosts  had  left  unto  us  (or  caused  to 
remain  over,  to  survive,  for  us)  a  very  small  remnant,  we  should  have  been 
like  Sodom,  we  should  have  resembled  Gomorrah,  i.  e.  we  should  have  been 
totally  and  justly  destroyed. — By  the  very  small  remnant  Knobel  understands 
the  city  of  Jerusalem,  compared  with  the  whole  land  and  all  its  cities  ;  Cle- 
ricus  the  small  number  of  surviving  Jews.     But  that  the  verse  has  reference 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  9 

to  quality  as  well  as  quantity,  is  evident  from  Rom.  9 :  29,  where  Paul  makes 
use  of  it,  not  as  an  illustration,  but  as  an  argument  to  show  that  mere  con- 
nexion with  the  church  could  not  save  men  from  the  wrath  of  God.  The 
citation  would  have  been  irrelevant  if  this  phrase  denoted  merely  a  small 
number  of  survivors,  and  not  a  minority  of  true  believers  in  the  midst  of  the 
prevailing  unbelief. — Clericus  explains  Jehovah  of  Hosts  to  mean  the  God 
of  Battles ;  but  it  rather  means  the  Sovereign  Ruler  of  "  heaven  and  earth 
and  all  the  host  of  them,"  i.e.  all  their  inhabitants  (Gen.  2:  1). — Lowth 
and  Barnes  translate  arns  soon,  as  in  Ps.  81  :  15 ;  but  the  usual  translation 
agrees  better  with  the  context  and  with  Paul's  quotation. 

V.  10.    Having  assigned  the  corruption  of  the  people  as  the  cause  of 
their  calamities,  the  Prophet  now  guards  against  the  error  of  supposing  that 
the  sin  thus  visited  was  that  of  neglecting  the  external  duties  of  religion, 
which  were  in  fact  punctiliously  performed,  but  unavailing  because  joined 
with  the  practice  of  iniquity,  vs.  10—15.     This  part  of  the  chapter  is  con- 
nected with  what  goes  before  by  repeating  the  allusion  to  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah.    Having  just  said  that  God's  sparing  mercy  had  alone  prevented 
their  resembling  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  condition,  he  now  reminds  them 
that  they  do  resemble  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  iniquity.     The  reference 
is  not  to  particular  vices,  but  to  general  character,   as  Jerusalem,  when 
reproached  for  her  iniquities,  'is  spiritually  called  Sodom'  (Rev.  11:  8). 
The  comparison  is  here  made  by  the  form  of  address.     Hear  the  word  of 
Jehovah,  ye  judges  (or  rulers)  of  Sodom,  give  ear  to  the  lata  of  our  God,  ye 
people  of  Gomorrah.     Word  and  law  both  denote  the  revelation  of  God's 
will  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  duty.     The  particular  exhibition  of  it  meant,  is 
that  which  follows,  and  to  which  this  verse  invites  attention  like  that  frequent 
exhortation  of  our  Saviour,  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear. — Junius, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  the  later  Germans,  take  rnin  in  the  general  sense  of 
doctrine  or  instruction,  which,  though  favoured  by  its  etymology,  is  not  sus- 
tained by  usage.    Knobel,  with  more  probability,  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
ritual  or  sacrificial  law  ;  but  there  is  no  need  either  of  enlarging  or  restricting 
the  meaning  of  the  term. — The  collocation  of  the  words  is  not  intended  to 
suggest  that  the  rulers  and  the  people  were  as  much  alike  as  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  (Calvin),  but  to  produce  a  rhythmical  effect.     The  sense  is  that 
the  rulers  and  people  of  Judah  were  as  guilty   as   those  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah. 

V.  11.  Resuming  the  form  of  interrogation  and  expostulation,  he  teaches 
them  that  God  had  no  need  of  sacrifices  on  his  own  account,  and  that  even 
those  sacrifices  which  he  had  required  might  become  offensive  to  him.  For 
what  (for  what  purpose,  to  what  end,  of  what  use)  is  the  multitude  of  your 


10  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 


sacrifices  to  me  (i.  e.  offered  to  me,  or  of  what  use  to  me)  1  saith  Jehovah.  I 
am  full  (i.  e.  sated,  I  have  had  enough,  I  desire  no  more)  of  burnt-offerings 
of  rams  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts  (fattened  for  the  altar),  and  the  blood  of 
bullocks  and  lambs  and  he-goats  I  desire  not  (or  delight  not  in).  Male 
animals  are  mentioned,  as  the  only  ones  admitted  in  the  nbsJ  or  burnt-offer- 
ing ;  the  fat  and  blood,  as  the  parts  in  which  the  sacrifice  essentially  con- 
sisted, the  one  being  always  burnt  upon  the  altar,  and  the  other  sprinkled 
or  poured  out  around  it. — Hendewerk  and  Henderson  suppose  an  allusion 
to  the  excessive  multiplication  of  sacrifices ;  but  this,  if  alluded  to  at  all,  is 
not  the  prominent  idea,  as  the  context  relates  wholly  to  the  spirit  and  con- 
duct of  the  offerers  themselves. — Some  German  interpreters  affect  to  see  an 
inconsistency  between  such  passages  as  this  and  the  law  requiring  sacrifices. 
But  these  expressions  must  of  course  be  interpreted  by  what  follows,  and 
especially  by  the  last  clause  of  v.  13. — Bochart  explains  fc^-nD  as  denot- 
ing a  species  of  wild  ox  ;  but  wild  beasts  were  not  received  in  sacrifice,  and 
this  word  simply  suggests  the  idea  of  careful  preparation  and  assiduous  com- 
pliance with  the  ritual.  Aben  Ezra  restricts  it  to  the  larger  cattle,  Jarchi 
to  the  smaller  ;  but  it  means  fed  or  fattened  beasts  of  either  kind. 

V.  12.  What  had  just  been  said  of  the  offerings  themselves,  is  now  said 
of  attendance  at  the  temple  to  present  them.      When  you  come  to  appear 
before  me,  who  hath  required  this  at  your  hand  to  tread  my  courts,  not 
merely  to  frequent  them,  but  to  trample  on  them,  as  a  gesture  of  contempt  ? 
The  courts  here  meant  are  the  enclosures  around  Solomon's  temple,  for  the 
priests,  worshippers,  and  victims.     The  interrogative  form  implies  negation. 
Such  appearance,  such  attendance,  God  had  not  required,  although  it  was 
their  duty  to  frequent  his  courts. — Cocceius  takes  ^3  in  its  ordinary  sense, 
without   a  material   change  of  meaning :  '  that  ye  come,  &c,  who  hath 
required  this  at  your  hands  V     Junius  makes  the  first  clause  a  distinct  inter- 
rogation (quod  advenitis,  an  ut  appareatis  in  conspectu  meo  ?),  Ewald  sees 
in  the  expression  at  your  hand,  an  allusion  to  the  sense  of  power,  in  which 
■fj  is  sometimes  used  ;  but  the  expression,  in  its  proper  sense,  is  natural  and 
common  after  verbs  of  giving  or  demanding. — Hitzig  supposes  the  trampling 
mentioned  to  be  that  of  the  victims,  as  if  he  had  said,  Who  hath  required  you 
to  profane  my  courts  by  the  feet  of  cattle  ?     But  the  word  appears  to  be 
applied  to  the  worshippers  themselves  in  a  twofold  sense,  which  cannot  be 
expressed  by  any  single  word  in  English.     They  were  bound  to  tread  his 
courts,  but  not  to  trample  them.  Vitringa  lays  the  emphasis  on  your :  Who 
hath  required  it  at  your  hands,  at  the  hands  of  such  as  you  ?     Umbreit 
strangely  thinks  the  passive  verb  emphatic  :  when  you  come  to  be  seen  and 
not  to  see.     The  emphasis  is  really  on  this.     Who  hath  required  this,  this 
sort  of  attendance,  at  your  hands  ?    One  manuscript  agrees  with  the  Peshito 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  11 

in  reading  rvixib  to  see;  but  the  common  reading  is  no  doubt  the  true  one, 
^o  bring  used  adverbially  for  the  full  form  bx  or  ^3B  hH,  which  is  else- 
where construed  with  the  same  passive  verb  (Exod.  23 :  17.  34 :  23,  24). 

V.  13.  What  he  said  before  of  animal  sacrifices  and  of  attendance  at 
the  temple  to  present  them,  is  now  extended  to  bloodless  offerings,  such  as 
incense  and  the  nriSE  or  meal-offering,  as  well  as  to  the  observance  of 
sacred  times,  and  followed  by  a  brief  intimation  of  the  sense  in  which  they 
were  all  unacceptable  to  God,  viz.  when  combined  with  the  practice  of 
iniquity.  The  interrogative  form  is  here  exchanged  for  that  of  direct  prohi- 
bition. Ye  shall  not  add  (i.  e.  continue)  to  bring  a  vain  offering  (that  is, 
a  useless  one,  because  hypocritical  and  impious).  Incense  is  an  abomination 
to  me :  (so  are)  new  moon  and  sabbath,  the  calling  of  the  convocation  (at 
those  times,  or  at  the  annual  feasts,  which  are  then  distinctly  mentioned 
with  the  weekly  and  monthly  ones)  :  J  cannot  bear  iniquity  and  holy  day 
(abstinence  from  labour,  religious  observance),  meaning  of  course,  I  cannot 
bear  them  together.  This  last  clause  is  a  key  to  the  preceding  verses.  It 
was  not  religious  observance  in  itself,  but  its  combination  with  iniquity,  that 
God  abhorred.  Aben  Ezra :  nir  cr  pf>  iwpJ  Jstf  f>i«  J.  H.  Michaelis  : 
ferre  non  possum  pravitatem  et  ferias,  quae  vos  conjungitis.  So  Cocceius, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Henderson,  &tc.  Other  constructions, 
inconsistent  with  the  Masoretic  accents,  but  substantially  affording  the  same 
sense,  are  those  of  Rosenmuller  ('  as  for  new  moon,  sabbath  &c,  I  cannot 
bear  iniquity'  &c.)  and  Umbreit  ('  new  moon  and  sabbath,  iniquity  and 
holy  day,  I  cannot  bear').  Another,  varying  the  sense  as  well  as  the  con- 
struction, is  that  of  Calvin  (solennes  indictiones  non  potero — vana  res  est — 
nee  conventum)  copied  by  Vitringa,  and,  with  some  modification,  by  the 
English  Version,  Clericus,  and  Barnes  ('  it  is  iniquity — even  the  solemn 
closing  meeting'),  which  violates  both  syntax  and  accentuation.  Clericus 
and  Gesenius  give  to  vain  oblation  the  specific  sense  of  false  or hypocritical ; 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hitzig,  and  Ewald,  that  of  sinful;  Cocceius  that  of  pre- 
sumptuous (temerarium)  ;  but  all  these  seem  to  be  included  or  implied  in  the 
old  and  common  version  vain  or  worthless.  (LXX.  fidruiov.  Vulg.  frustra. 
Luther,  vergeblich.)  Cocceius  and  Ewald  construe  the  second  member  of 
the  sentence  thus :  £  it  (the  meal-offering)  is  abominable  incense  to  me  f 
which  is  very  harsh.  The  modern  lexicographers  (Gesenius,  Winer,  Furst) 
make  convocation  or  assembly  the  primary  idea  of  rvixs  ;  but  all  agree  that 
it  is  used  in  application  to  times  of  religious  observance. 

V.  14.  The  very  rites  ordained  by  God  himself,  and  once  acceptable  to 
him,  had,  through  the  sin  of  those  who  used  them,  become  irksome  and  dis- 
gusting.    Your  new  moons  (an  emphatic  repetition,  as  if  he  had  said,  Yes, 


12  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 

your  new  moons)  and  your  convocations  (sabbaths  and  yearly  feasts)  my 
soul  hateth  (not  a  mere  periphrasis  for  I  hate,  but  an  emphatic  phrase  denot- 
ing cordial  hatred,  q.  d.  odi  ex  animo),  they  have  become  a  burden  on  me 
(implying  that  they  were  not  so  at  first),  I  am  weary  of  bearing  (or  have 
wearied  myself  bearing  them). — Lowth's  version  months  is  too  indefinite  to 
represent  D^'tinn,  which  denotes  the  beginnings  of  the  lunar  months,  observed 
as  sacred  times  under  the  law  of  Moses  (Num.  28:  11.  10:  10).  Kocher 
supposes  they  are  mentioned  here  again  because  they  had  been  peculiarly 
abused ;  but  Henderson  explains  the  repetition  better  as  a  rhetorical  epana- 
lepsis,  resuming  and  continuing  the  enumeration  in  another  form.  Heng- 
stenberg  has  shown  (Christol.  vol.  3.  p.  87)  that  n^sio  is  applied  in  Scripture 
only  to  the  sabbath,  passover,  pentecost,  day  of  atonement,  and  feast  of 
tabernacles.  The  common  version  of  the  second  clause  (they  are  a  trouble 
unto  me)  is  too  vague.  The  noun  should  have  its  specific  sense  of  burden, 
load,  the  preposition  its  proper  local  sense  of  on,  and  the  verb  with  \  its  usual 
force,  as  signifying  not  mere  existence  but  a  change  of  state,  in  which  sense 
it  is  thrice  used  in  this  very  chapter  (vs.  21,  22,  31).  The  last  particular 
is  well  expressed  by  the  Septuagint  (fyeprtfoipi  poi)  and  Vulgate  (facta 
sunt  mihi),  and  the  other  two  by  Calvin  (superfuerunt  mihi  loco  oneris), 
Vitringa  (incumbunt  mihi  instar  oneris),  Lowth  (they  are  a  burthen  upon 
me),  and  Gesenius  (sie  sind  mir  zur  Last)  ;  but  neither  of  these  versions 
gives  the  full  force  of  the  clause  in  all  its  parts.  The  Septuagint,  the  Chal- 
dee  Paraphrase,  and  Symmachus  take  wsa  in  the  sense  of  forgiving,  which 
it  has  in  some  connexions  ;  but  the  common  meaning  agrees  better  with  the 
parallel  expression,  load  or  burden, 

V.  15.  Not  only  ceremonial  observances  but  even  prayer  was  rendered 
useless  by  the  sins  of  those  who  offered  it.     And  in  your  spreading  (when 
you  spread)' your  hands  (or  stretch  them  out  towards  heaven  as  a  gesture  of 
entreaty)  I  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you  (avert  my  face,  refuse  to  see  or 
hear,  not  only  in  ordinary  but)   also  when  ye  multiply  prayer  (by  fervent 
importunity  in  time  of  danger)  I  am  not  hearing  (or  about  to  hear,  the  par- 
ticiple bringing  the  act  nearer  to  the  present  than  the  future  would  do). 
Your  hands  are  full  of  blood  (literally  bloods,  the  form  commonly  used 
when  the  reference  is  to  bloodshed  or  the  guilt  of  murder).     Thus  the  Pro- 
phet comes  back  to  the  point  from  which  he  set  out,  the  iniquity  of  Israel 
as  the  cause  of  his  calamities,  but  with  this  difference,  that  at  first  he  viewed 
sin  in  its  higher  aspect,  as  committed  against  God,  whereas  in  this  place  its 
injurious  effects  on  men  are  rendered  prominent. — By  multiplying  prayer 
Henderson  understands   the  pazroXoyia  or  vain  repetition^,  condemned  by 
Christ  as  a  customary  error  of  his  times  ;  but  this  would  make  the  threat- 
ening less  impressive.     The  force  of  &5  as  here  used  (not  only  this  but,  or 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  18 


nay  more)  may  be  consult -p-d  as  included  in  the  old  English  yea  of  the  com- 
mon version,  for  which  Lowth  and  Henderson  have  substituted  even.  The 
latter  also  takes  ^3  in  the  sense  of  (hough,  without  effect  upon  the  meaning 
of  the  sentence,  and  suggests  that  the  preterite  at  the  end  of  the  verse  denotes 
habitual  action  ;  but  it  simply  denotes  previous  action,  or  that  their  hands 
were  already  full  of  blood.  Under  blood  or  murder  Calvin  supposes  all  sins 
of  violence  and  gf088  injustice  to  be  comprehended  ;  but  although  the  men- 
tion of  the  highest  crime  against  the  person  may  suggest  the  others,  they 
can  hardly  be  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  word. — Junius  and  Clericus 
translate  cw  murders  (caedibus  plenae)  ;  but  the  literal  translation  is  at 
once  more  exact  and  more  expressive.  It  is  a  strange  opinion  mentioned  by 
Fabricius  (Diss.  Phil.  Theol.  p.  329)  that  the  blood  here  meant  is  the  blood 
of  the  victims  hypocritically  offered. — For  the  form  csd"iq  see  Nordheimer, 
$$  101.  2.  a.  476. 

V.  16.  Having  shown  the  insufficiency  of  ceremonial  rites  and  even  of 
more  spiritual  duties  to  avert  or  cure  the  evils  which  the  people  had  brought 
upon  themselves  by  their  iniquities,  he  exhorts  them  to  abandon  these  and 
urges  reformation,  not  as  the  causa  qua  but  as  a  causa  sine  qua  non  of 
deliverance  and  restoration  to  God's  favour.  Wash  you  (isrn  a  word  ap- 
propriated to  ablution  of  the  body,  as  distinguished  from  all  other  washings), 
purify  yourselves  (in  a  moral  or  figurative  sense,  as  appears  from  what  fol- 
lows). Remove  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes  (out  of  my 
sight,  which  could  only  be  done  by  putting  an  end  to  them,  an  idea  literally 
expressed  in  the  last  clause),  cease  to  do  evil. — Luther,  Gesenius,  and  most 
of  the  late  writers  render  s""i  as  an  adjective,  your  evil  doings ;  but  it  is 
better  to  retain  the  abstract  form  of  the  original,  with  Ewald,  Lowth,  Vi- 
tringa,  and  the  ancient  versions. — In  some  of  the  older  versions  G^bbsa  is 
loosely  and  variously  rendered.  Thus  the  LXX.  have  souls,  the  Vulgate 
thoughts,  Calvin  desires,  Luther  your  evil  nature.  The  meaning  of  the 
term  may  now  be  looked  upon  as  settled. — Some  have  understood  from 
before  mine  eyes  as  an  exhortation  to  reform  not  only  in  the  sight  of  man 
but  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  others  as  implying  that  their  sins  had  been 
committed  to  God's  face,  that  is  to  say,  with  presumptuous  boldness.  But 
the  true  meaning  seems  to  be  the  obvious  and  simple  one  expressed  above. 
Knobel  imagines  that  the  idea  of  sin  as  a  pollution  had  its  origin  in  the 
ablutions  of  the  law  ;  but  it  is  perfectly  familiar  and  intelligible  wherever 
conscience  is  at  all  enlightened. — Aben  Ezra  explains  toiri  as  the  Hithpael 
of  ri3t?  to  which  Hitzig  and  Henderson  object  that  this  species  is  wanting 
in  all  other  verbs  beginning  with  that  letter,  and  that  according  to  analogy 
it  would  be  ©:!*!.     They  explain  it  therefore  as  the  Niphal  of  Tfi] ;  but 


14  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 

Gesenius  (in  his  Lexicon)  objects  that  this  would  have  the  accent  on  the 
penult.     Compare  Nordheimer  <§>  77.  1.  c. 

V.  17.  The  negative  exhortation  is  now  followed  by  a  positive  one. 
Ceasing  to  do  evil  was  not  enough,  or  rather  was  not  possible,  without 
beginning  to  do  good.  Learn  to  do  good,  implying  that  they  never  yet 
had  known  what  it  was.  This  general  expression  is  explained  by  several 
specifications,  showing  how  they  were  to  do  good.  Seek  judgment, 
i.  e.  justice  ;  not  in  the  abstract,  but  in  act ;  not  for  yourselves,  but  for 
others ;  be  not  content  with  abstinence  from  wrong,  but  seek  opportunities 
of  doing  justice,  especially  to  those  who  cannot  right  themselves.  Redress 
wrong,  judge  the  fatherless,  i.  e.  act  as  a  judge  for  his  benefit,  or  more  spe- 
cifically, do  him  justice  ;  befriend  the  widow,  take  her  part,  espouse  her  cause. 
Orphans  and  widows  are  continually  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  special  objects 
of  divine  compassion,  and  as  representing  the  whole  class  of  helpless  inno- 
cents.— By  learning  to  do  good,  Musculus  and  Hitzig  understand  forming 
the  habit  or  accustoming  one's  self ;  but  the  phrase  appears  to  have  a  more 
emphatic  meaning. — Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Knobel, 
take  "p^n  in  the  active  sense  of  an  oppressor,  or  a  proud  and  wicked  man, 
and  understand  the  Prophet  as  exhorting  his  readers  to  conduct  or  guide 
such,  i.  e.  to  reclaim  them  from  their  evil  courses.  The  Septuagint, 
the  Vulgate,  and  the  Rabbins,  make  pipn  a  passive  participle,  and  the 
exhortation  one  to  rescue  the  oppressed  (jfrvoaa&E  adixovfievov,  subvenite  op- 
presso),  in  which  they  are  followed  by  Luther,  Calvin,  Cocceius,  Rosen- 
muller,  Henderson,  and  Umbreit.  Vitringa  adopts  Bochart's  derivation  of 
the  word  from  y^n  to  ferment  (emendate  quod  corruptum  est)  ;  but  Maurer 
comes  the  nearest  to  the  truth  in  his  translation  (aequum  facite  iniquum). 
The  form  of  the  word  seems  to  identify  it  as  the  infinitive  of  ynn  i.  q.  oan 
to  be  violent,  to  do  violence,  to  injure.  Thus  understood  the  phrase  forms 
a  link  between  the  general  expression  seek  justice  and  the  more  specific  one 
do  justice  to  the  orphan.  The  common  version  of  the  last  clause  (plead  for 
the  widow)  seems  to  apply  too  exclusively  to  advocates,  as  distinguished 
from  judges. 

V.  18.  Having  shown  that  the  cause  of  their  ill  success  in  seeking  God 
was  in  themselves,  and  pointed  out  the  only  means  by  which  the  evil  could 
be  remedied,  he  now  invites  them  to  determine  by  experiment  on  which 
side  the  fault  of  their  destruction  lay,  promising  pardon  and  deliverance  to 
the  penitent  and  threatening  total  ruin  to  the  disobedient,  vs.  18-20. — This 
verse  contains  an  invitation  to  discuss  the  question  whether  God  was  willing 
or  unwilling  to  show  mercy,  implying  that  reason  as  well  as  justice  was  on 
his  side,  and  asserting  his  power  and  his  willingness  to  pardon  the  most 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  15 

aggravated  sins.     Come  now  (a  common  formula  of  exhortation)  and  let  us 

reason  (argue,  or  discuss  the  case)  together  (the  fonu  of  the  verb  denoting 
a  reciprocal  action),  saith  Jehovah,     Though  your  sins  be  as  scarlet  they 
shall  be  white  as  snow,  though  they  be  red  as  crimson  they  shall  be  as  wool, 
i.  e.  clean  white  wool.     Guilt  being  regarded  as  a  stain,  its  removal  denotes 
restoration  to  purity.     The  implied  conclusion  of  the  reasoning  is  that  God's 
willingness  to  pardon  threw  the  blame  of  their  destruction  on  themselves. — 
Gesenius  understands  this  verse  as  a  threatening  that  God  would  contend 
with  them  in  the  way  of  vengeance,  and  blot  out  their  sins  by  condign  pun- 
ishment ;  but  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  reciprocal  meaning  of  the  verb. 
Umbreit  regards  the  last  clause  as  a  threatening  that  their  sins,  however 
deeply  coloured  or  disguised,  should  be  discoloured,  i.  e.  brought  to  light ; 
an  explanation  inconsistent  with  the  natural  and  scriptural  usage  of  white 
and  red  to  signify  innocence  and  guilt,  especially  that  of  murder.     J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  Augusti  make  the  verbs  in  the  last  clause  interrogative :  '  Shall 
they  be  white  as  snow  ?'  i.  e.  can  I  so  regard  them  ?  implying  that  God 
would  estimate  them  rightly  and  reward  them  justly.     This,  in  the  absence 
of  tthe  interrogative  particle,  is  gratuitous  and  arbitrary.     Clericus  under- 
stands the  first  clause  as  a  proposition  to  submit  to  punishment  (turn  agite, 
nos  castigari  patiamur,  ait  enim  Jehova)  ;  but  although  the  verb  might  be  a 
simple  passive,  this  construction  arbitrarily  supposes  two  speakers  in  the 
verse,  and  supplies  for  after  the  first  verb,  besides  making  the  two  clauses 
inconsistent ;  for  if  they  were  pardoned,  why  submit  to  punishment  ? — Ac- 
cording to  Kimchi,  the  word  translated  crimson  is  a  stronger  one  than  that 
translated  scarlet ;  but  the  two  are  commonly  combined  to  denote  one  colour, 
and  are  here  separated  only  as  poetical  equivalents. 

V.  19.  The  unconditional  promise  is  now  qualified  and  yet  enlarged. 
If  obedient,  they  should  not  only  escape  punishment  but  be  highly  favoured. 
If  ye  consent  to  my  terms,  and  hear  my  commands,  implying  obedience, 
the  good  of  the  land,  its  choicest  products,  ye  shall  eat,  instead  of  seeing 
them  devoured  by  strangers. — Luther  and  others  understand  consent  and 
hear  as  a  hendiadys  for  consent  to  hear  (wollt  ihr  mir  gehorchen)  ;  but  this 
is  forbidden  by  the  parallel  expression  in  the  next  verse,  where  refuse  and 
rebel  cannot  mean  refuse  to  rebel,  but  each  verb  has  its  independent  mean- 
ing. LXX.  iaf  A&yri  xui  efaaxovoriri  pov.  Vulg.  si  volueritis  et  audieri- 
tis.     So  Gesenius,  Ewald,  etc. 

V.  20.  This  is  the  converse  of  the  nineteenth  verse,  a  threat  correspond- 
ing to  the  promise.  And  if  ye  refuse  to  comply  with  my  conditions,  and 
rebel,  continue  to  resist  my  authority,  by  the  sword  of  the  enemy  shall  ye  be 
eaten.     This  is  no  human  menace  but  a  sure  prediction,  for  the  mouth  of 


16  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 

Jehovah  speaks,  not  man's.  Or  the  sense  may  be,  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  has 
spoken  or  ordained  it.  (Targ.  Jon.  fa  ita  **N  k-ibie,  the  word  of  Jehovah 
has  so  decreed.) — According  to  Gesenius,  tf&fcto  literally  means  ye  shall  be 
caused  to  he  devoured  by  the  sword,  i.  e.  I  cause  the  sword  to  devour  you. 
But,  as  Hitzig  observes,  the  passive  causative,  according  to  analogy,  would 
mean  ye  shall  be  caused  to  devour,  and  so  he  renders  it  (so  miisset  ihr  das 
Schwerdt  verzehren).  But  in  every  other  case,  where  such  a  metaphor 
occurs,  the  sword  is  not  said  to  be  eaten  but  to  eat.  (See  Deut.  32 :  42. 
Isai.  34 :  6.  2  Sam.  2 :  26.)  The  truth  is  that  ^3K  is  nowhere  else  a 
causative  at  all,  but  a  simple  passive,  or  at  most  an  intensive  passive  of  baa. 
(See  Exodus  3 :  2.  Neh.  2 :  3.  13.) 

V.  21.  Here  the  Prophet  seems  to  pause  for  a  reply,  and  on  receiving 
no  response  to  the  promises  and  invitations  of  the  foregoing  context,  bursts 
forth  into  a  sudden  exclamation  at  the  change  which  Israel  has  undergone, 
which  he  then  describes  both  in  figurative  and  literal  expressions,  vs.  21—23. 
In  the  verse  before  us  he  contrasts  her  former  state,  as  the  chaste  bride  of 
Jehovah,  with  her  present  pollution,  the  ancient  home  of  justice  with  the 
present  haunt  of  cruelty  and  violence.     How  has  she  become  an  harlot 
(faithless  to  her  covenant  with  Jehovah),  the  faithful  city   (•"i^p,  noXig, 
including  the  ideas  of  a  city  and  a  state,  urbs  et  civitas,  the  body  politic, 
the  church,  of  which  Jerusalem  was  the  centre  and  metropolis),  full  of  jus- 
tice (i.  e.  once  full),  righteousness  lodged  (i.  e.  habitually,  had  its  home, 
resided)  in  it,  and  now  murderers,  as  the  worst  class  of  violent  wrong-doers, 
whose  name  suggests  though  it  does  not  properly  include  all  others. — Kim- 
chi  and  Knobel  suppose  a  particular  allusion  to  the  introduction  of  idolatry, 
a  forsaking  of  Jehovah  the  true  husband  for  paramours  or  idols.    But  although 
this  specific  application  of  the  figure  occurs  elsewhere,  and  is  extended  by 
Hosea  into  allegory,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  restricting  the  expres- 
sions here  used  to  idolatry,  although  it  may  be  included. — The  particle  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  properly  interrogative,  but  like  the  English  how 
is  also  used  to  express  surprise.     '  How  has  she  become  ?'  i.  e.  how  could 
she  possibly  become  ?  how  strange  that  she  should  become  ! — For  the  form 
■fcfS&a  see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  93.  2.     Ewald,  §  406.     For  the  tense  of  y^, 
Nordh.  <$>  967.  1.  6. 

V.  22.  The  change,  which  had  just  been  represented  under  the  figure 
of  adultery,  is  now  expressed  by  that  of  adulteration,  first  of  silver,  then  of 
wine.  Thy  silver  (addressing  the  unfaithful  church  or  city)  is  become  dross 
(alloy,  base  metal),  thy  wine  weakened  (literally  cut,  mutilated)  with  water. 
Compare  the  words  of  Martial,  scelus  est  jugular e  Falernum.  The  essential 
idea  seems  to  be  that  of  impairing  strength. — The  Septuagint  applies  this 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  H 


text  in  a  literal  sense  to  dishonest  arts  m  the  sale  of  wines  and  the  exchange 
of  money.  01  xuntjloi  gov  ^layovai  rbv  olvov  vdari.  But  this  interpretation, 
besides  its  unworthiness  and  incongruity,  is  set  aside  by  the  Prophet's  own 
explanation  of  his  figures,  in  the  next  verse. 

V.  23.  The  same  idea  is  now  expressed  in  literal  terms,  and  with  special 
application  to  magistrates  and  rulers.     They  who  were  bound  officially  to 
suppress  disorder  and  protect  the  helpless,  were  themselves  greedy  of  gain, 
rebellious  against  God,  and  tyrannical  towards  man.     Thy  rulers  are  rebels 
and  fellows  of  thieves  (not  merely  like  them  or  belonging  to  the  same  class, 
but  accomplices,  partakers  of  their  sin),  every  one  of  them  loving  a  bribe 
(the  participle   denoting  present  and    habitual   action)   and  pursuing  re- 
wards (-":^r  compensations.    LXX.  uvTUTzodofiu.    Symm.  afioi^ug).      The 
fatherless  (as  being  unable  to  reward  them,  or  as  an  object  of  cupidity  to 
others)  they  judge  not,  and  the  cause  of  the  widow  cometh  not  unto  them, 
or  before  them  ;  they  will  not  hear  it ;  they  will  not  act  as  judges  for  their 
benefit.     They  are  not  simply  unjust  judges,  they  are  no  judges  at  all,  they 
will  not  act  as  such,  except  when  they  can  profit  by  it.     (J.  D.  Michaelis  : 
dem  Waisen  halten  sie  kein  Gericht.)     Rulers  and  rebels  is  a  sufficient 
approximation  to  the  alleged  paronomasia  in  E^ia  7ff$fi  a  gratuitous   and 
vain  attempt  to  copy  which  is  made  by  Gesenius  (deine  Vorgesetzten  sind 
widersetzlich)  and  Ewald  (deine  Herren  sind  Narren !). — Knobel  supposes 
the  rebellion  here  meant  to  be  that  of  which  Judah  was  guilty  in  becoming 
dependent  upon  Assyria  (comp.  ch.  30  :  1).    But  there  is  nothing  to  restrict 
the  application  of  the  terms,  which  simply  mean  that  instead  of  suppressing 
rebellion  they  were  rebels  themselves. 

V.  24.  To  this  description  of  the  general  corruption  the  Prophet  now 
adds  a  promise  of  purgation,  which  is  at  the  same  time  a  threatening  of  sorer 
judgments,  as  the  appointed  means  by  which  the  church  was  to  be  restored 
to  her  original  condition,  vs.  24-31. — In  this  verse,  the  destruction  of  God's 
enemies  is  represented  as  a  necessary  satisfaction  to  his  justice.      Therefore, 
because  the  very  fountains  of  justice  have  thus  become  corrupt,  saith  the 
Lord,  the  word  properly  so  rendered,  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  eternal  Sove- 
reign, the  mighty  one  of  Israel,  the  almighty  God  who  is  the  God  of  Israel, 
Ah,  an  interjection  expressing  both  displeasure  and  concern,  I  will  comfort 
myself,  ease  or  relieve  myself,  of  my  adversaries,  literally,  from  them,  i.  e.  by 
ridding  myself  of  them,  and  1  will  avenge  myself  of  mine  enemies,  not  foreign 
foes,  of  whom  there  is  no  mention  in  the  context,  but  the  enemies  of  God 
among  the   Jews  themselves. — Cocceius  understands  by    b»*W  *pzx  the 
champion  or  hero  of  Israel,  and  Knobel  the  mightiest  in  Israel ;  but  the 
first  word  seems  clearly  to  denote  an  attribute  of  God,  and  the  second  his 

2 


18  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 


relation  to  his  people.  Henderson  translates  the  phrase,  Protector  of  Israel ; 
but  this  idea,  though  implied,  is  not  expressed.  The  latest  versions  follow 
Junius  and  Tremellius  in  giving  to  oxa  its  proper  form  as  a  passive  partici- 
ple used  as  a  noun,  like  the  Latin  dictum,  and  applied  exclusively  to  divine 
communications.  Henderson:  Hence  the  announcement  of  the  Lord.  So 
Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit. 

V.  25.  The  mingled  promise  and  threatening  is  repeated  under  one  of 
the  figures  used  in  v.  22.  The  adulterated  silver  must  be  purified  by  the 
separation  of  its  impure  particles.  And  I  will  turn  my  hand  upon  thee,  i.  e. 
take  thee  in  hand,  address  myself  to  thy  case,  and  will  purge  out  thy  dross 
like  purity  itself,  i.  e.  most  purely,  thoroughly,  and  will  take  away  all  thine 
alloy,  tin,  lead,  or  other  base  metal  found  in  combination  with  the  precious 
ores. — Luther,  Junius  and  Tremellius  render  bs>  against,  and  make  the  first 
clause  wholly  minatory  in  its  import.  But  although  to  turn  the  hand  has 
elsewhere  an  unfavourable  sense  (Ps.  81  :  15.  Amos  1 :  8),  it  does  not  of 
itself  express  it,  but  simply  means  to  take  in  hand,  address  one's  self  to  any 
thing,  make  it  the  object  of  attention.  (J.  D.  Michaelis  :  in  Arbeit  nehmen.) 
It  appears  to  have  been  used  in  this  place  to  convey  both  a  promise  and  a 
threatening,  which  run  together  through  this  whole  context.  Augusti  and 
the  later  Germans  use  the  ambiguous  term  gegen  which  has  both  a  hostile 
and  a  local  meaning. — The  Targum  of  Jonathan,  followed  by  Kimchi, 
Schmidius,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  the  latest  Germans,  makes  ^in  a  noun  mean- 
ing potash  or  the  vegetable  alkali  used  in  the  smelting  of  metals.  Hender- 
son :  as  with  potash.  The  usual  sense  of  purity  is  retained  by  Luther 
(auf  s  lauterste),  the  English  Version  (purely),  Gesenius  (rein),  and  Barnes 
(wholly).  The  particle  is  taken  in  a  local  sense  by  the  Septuagint  (tig 
xa&aQov),  Vulgate  &d  purum),  Cocceius  (ad  puritatem),  Calvin  and  Vitringa 
(ad|liquidum),  and  the  clause  is  paraphrased,  as  expressing  restoration  to  a 
state  of  purity,  by  Junius  (ut  justae  puritati  restituam  te),  and  Augusti  (bis 
es  rein  wird).  But  this  is  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the  particle. — The 
conjectural  emendations  of  Clericus  (ns^  like  a  furnace),  Seeker  and  Lowth 
(•nan  in  the  furnace)  are  perfectly  gratuitous. 

V.  26.  Here  again  the  figurative  promise  is  succeeded  by  a  literal  one 
of  restoration  to  a  former  state  of  purity,  to  be  effected  not  by  the  conversion 
of  the  wicked  rulers  but  by  filling  their  places  with  better  men.  And  I  will 
restore,  bring  back,  cause  to  return,  thy  judges,  rulers,  as  at  first,  in  the 
earliest  and  best  days  of  the  commonwealth,  and  thy  counsellors,  ministers 
of  state,  as  in  the  beginning,  after  which  it  shall  be  called  to  thee,  a  Hebrew 
idiom  for  thou  shalt  be  called,  i.  e.  deservedly,  with  truth,  City  of  Right- 
eousness, a  Faithful  State.    There  is  here  a  twofold  allusion  to  v.  21.   She 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  19 

who  from  being  a  faithful  wife  had  become  an  adulteress  or  harlot,  should 
again  be  what  she  was  ;  and  justice  which  once  dwelt  in  her  should  return 
to  its  old  home. — It  is  an  ingenious  but  superfluous  conjecture  of  Vitringa, 
that  Jerusalem  was  anciently  called  p*}X  as  well  as  obiy  (Gen.  14:  18), 
since  the  same  king  bote  the  name  of  p^-^jfoq  (king  of  righteousness)  and 
nbu  ^bo  (king  of  peace),  and  a  later  king  (Jos.  10:  1)  was  called  p^pf^T^ 
(lord  of  righteousness).  The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  would  then  be  that 
the  city  should  again  deserve  its  ancient  name,  which  is  substantially  its 
meaning  now,  even  without  supposing  an  allusion  so  refined  and  far-fetched. 

V.  27.  Thus  far  the  promise  to  God's  faithful  people  and  the  threaten- 
ing to  his  enemies  among  them  had  been  intermingled,  or  so  expressed  as  to 
involve  each  other.  Thus  the  promise  of  purification  to  the  silver  involved 
a  threatening  of  destruction  to  the  dross.  But  now  the  two  elements  of  the 
prediction  are  exhibited  distinctly,  and  first  the  promise  to  the  church.  Zion, 
the  chosen  people,  as  a  whole,  here  considered  as  consisting  of  believers 
only,  shall  be  redeemed,  delivered  from  destruction,  in  judgment,  i.  e.  in  the 
exercise  of  justice  upon  God's  part,  and  her  converts,  those  of  her  who 
return  to  God  by  true  repentance,  in  righteousness,  here  used  as  an  equiva- 
lent to  justice. — Gesenius  and  the  other  modern  Germans  adopt  the  expla- 
nation given  in  the  Targum,  which  assumes  in  judgment  and  in  righteous- 
ness to  mean  by  the  practice  of  righteousness  on  the  part  of  the  people. 
Calvin  regards  the  same  words  as  expressive  of  God's  rectitude,  which  would 
not  suffer  the  innocent  to  perish  with  the  guilty.  But  neither  of  these  inter- 
pretations is  so  natural  in  this  connexion  as  that  which  understands  the 
verse  to  mean  that  the  very  same  events,  by  which  the  divine  justice  was 
to  manifest  itself  in  the  destruction  of  the  wicked,  should  be  the  occasion 
and  the  means  of  deliverance  to  Zion  or  the  true  people  of  God. — The 
Septuagint,  Peshito,  and  Luther,  understand  by  FpJP  her  captivity  or  cap- 
tives (as  if  from  tta©)3  Calvin  and  others  her  returning  captives  (qui  redu- 
centur  ad  earn)  ;  but  the  great  majority  of  writers,  old  and  new,  take  the 
word  in  a  spiritual  sense,  which  it  frequently  has  elsewhere.  See  for  ex- 
ample ch.  6 :  10. 

V.  28.  The  other  element  is  now  brought  out,  viz.  the  destruction  of 
the  wicked,  which  was  to  be  simultaneous  and  coincident  with  the  deliver- 
ance promised  to  God's  people  in  the  verse  preceding.  And  the  breaking, 
crushing,  utter  ruin,  of  apostates,  revolters,  deserters  from  Jehovah,  and  sin- 
ners, is  or  shall  be  together,  i.  e.  at  the  same  time  with  Zion's  redemption, 
and  the  forsakers  of  Jehovah,  an  equivalent  expression  to  apostates  in  the 
first  clause,  shall  cease,  come  to  an  end,  be  totally  destroyed.  The  terms  of 
this  verse  are  appropriate  to  all  kinds  of  sin,  but  seem  to  be  peculiarly  de- 


20  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I. 

scriptive  of  idolatry,  as  defection  or  desertion  from  the  true  God  to  idols,  and 
thus  prepare  the  way  for  the  remainder  of  the  chapter,  in  which  that  class 
of  transgressors  are  made  prominent. — Umbreit  supplies  no  verb  in  the  first 
clause,  but  reads  it  as  an  exclamation :  '  Ruin  to  apostates  and  sinners  all 
together !'  which  is  extremely  harsh  without  a  preposition  before  the  nouns. 
Ewald,  more  grammatically,  <  Ruin  of  the  evil-doers  and  sinners  altogether !' 
But  the  only  natural  construction  is  the  common  one. — Some  writers  under- 
stand together  as  expressing  the  simultaneous  destruction  of  the  two  classes 
mentioned  here,  apostates  and  sinners,  or  of  these  considered  as  one  class 
and  the  forsakers  of  Jehovah  as  another.  But  the  expression  is  far  more 
emphatic,  and  agrees  far  better  with  the  context,  if  we  understand  it  as  con- 
necting this  destruction  with  the  deliverance  in  v.  27,  and  as  being  a  final 
repetition  of  the  truth  stated  in  so  many  forms,  that  the  same  judgments 
which  destroyed  the  wicked  should  redeem  the  righteous,  or  in  other  words, 
that  the  purification  of  the  church  could  be  effected  only  by  the  excision  of 
her  wicked  members. — Junius  differs  from  all  others  in  supposing  the  meta- 
phor of  v.  25  to  be  here  resumed.  c  And  the  fragments  (">^)  of  apostates, 
and  of  sinners  likewise,  and  of  those  who  forsake  Jehovah,  shall  fail  or  be 
utterly  destroyed.' 

V.  29.  From  the  final  destruction  of  idolaters  the  Prophet  now  reverts 
to  their  present  security  and  confidence  in  idols,  which  he  tells  them  shall 
be  put  to  shame  and  disappointed.  For  they  shall  be  ashamed  of  the  oaks 
or  terebinths  which  ye  have  desired,  and  ye  shall  be  confounded  for  the 
gardens  which  ye  have  chosen  as  places  of  idolatrous  worship. — Paulus  and 
Hitzig  think  that  nothing  more  is  here  predicted  than  the  loss  of  the  fine 
pleasure-grounds  in  which  the  wealthy  Jews  delighted.  But  why  should 
this  part  of  their  property  be  specified  in  threatening  them  with  total  destruc- 
tion ?  And  why  should  they  be  ashamed  of  these  favourite  possessions  and 
confounded  on  account  of  them  ?  As  these  are  terms  constantly  employed 
to  express  the  frustration  of  religious  trust,  and  as  groves  and  gardens  are 
continually  spoken  of  as  chosen  scenes  of  idol-worship  (see,  for  example, 
ch.  65:  3.  66:  17.  Ezek.  6:  13.  Hos.  4:  13),  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  common  opinion  is  the  true  one,  namely,  that  both  this  verse  and 
the  one  preceding  have  particular  allusion  to  idolatry. — Vitringa  understands 
the  first  clause  thus :  they  (the  Jews  of  a  future  generation)  shall  be  ashamed 
of  the  oaks  which  ye  (the  contemporaries  of  the  Prophet)  have  desired.  It 
is  much  more  natural  however  to  regard  it  as  an  instance  of  enallage  perso- 
nae  (Gesen.  $  134.  3),  or  to  construe  the  first  verb  indefinitely,  they,  i.  e. 
men  in  general,  people,  or  the  like,  shall  be  ashamed,  etc.,  which  construc- 
tion is  adopted  by  all  the  recent  German  writers  (Gesenius :  zu  Schanden 
wird  man,  u.  s.  w.) — Knobel  renders  h3  at  the  beginning  so  that,  which  is 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I.  21 

wholly  unnecessary,  as  the  verse  gives  a  reason  for  the  way  in  which  the 
Prophet  had  spoken  of  persons  now  secure  and  flourishing,  and  the  proper 

meaning  of  the  particle  is  therefore  perfectly  appropriate. — Lowth  renders 
e^x  ilexes,  Gesenius  and  the  other  Germans  Terebinthen,  which  is  no 
douht  hotanically  accurate  ;  hut  in  English  oak  may  he  retained  as  more 
poetical,  and  is  the  tree  which,  together  with  the  terebinth,  composes  almost 
all  the  groves  of  Palestine. — The  preposition  before  oaks  and  gardens  may 
imply  removal  from  them,  but  is  more  probably  a  mere  connective  of  tin 
verb  with  the  object  or  occasion  of  the  action,  like  the  of  and  for  in  English. 

V.  30.  The  mention  of  trees  and  gardens,  as  places  of  idolatrous  wor- 
ship, suggests  a  beautiful  comparison,  under  which  the  destruction  of  the 
idolaters  is  again  set  forth.  They  who  choose  trees  and  gardens,  in  prefer- 
ence to  God's  appointed  place  of  worship,  shall  themselves  be  like  trees  and 
gardens,  but  in  the  most  alarming  sense.  For,  in  answer  to  the  tacit  ques- 
tion why  they  should  be  ashamed  and  confounded  for  their  oaks  and  gar- 
dens, ye  yourselves  shall  be  like  an  oak  or  terebinth,  fading,  decaying,  in 
its  leaf  or  as  to  its  leaf,  and  like  a  garden  which  has  no  water,  a  lively 
emblem,  to  an  oriental  reader,  of  entire  desolation. — Some  writers  understand 
the  Prophet  to  allude  to  the  terebinth  when  dead,  on  the  ground  that  it  never 
sheds  its  leaves  when  living ;  but  according  to  Robinson  and  Smith  (Bib. 
Res.  vol.  hi.  p.  15),  the  terebinth  or  "  butm  is  not  an  evergreen,  as  is  often 
represented ;  its  small  feathered  lancet-shaped  leaves  fall  in  the  autumn  and 
are  renewed  in  the  spring." — Both  here  and  in  the  foregoing  verse,  Knobel 
supposes  there  is  special  allusion  to  the  gardens  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom, 
where  Ahaz  sacrificed  to  Moloch  (2  Chr.  28 :  3.  Isai.  30 :  33,  compared 
with  ch.  22 :  7),  and  a  prediction  of  their  being  wasted  by  the  enemy  ;  but 
this,  to  say  the  least,  is  not  a  necessary  exposition  of  the  Prophet's  general 
expressions. — For  the  construction  of  r^r  H=r.b,  see  Gesenius  $  116.  3. 

V.  31.  This  verse  contains  a  closing  threat  of  sudden,  total,  instantane- 
ous destruction  to  the  Jewish  idolaters,  to  be  occasioned  by  the  very  things 
which  they  preferred  to  God,  and  in  which  they  confided.  And  the  strong, 
the  mighty  man,  alluding  no  doubt  to  the  unjust  rulers  of  the  previous  con- 
text, shall  become  toiv,  an  exceedingly  inflammable  substance,  and  his  work, 
his  idols,  often  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  the  work  of  men's  hands,  shall 
become  a  spark,  the  means  and  occasion  of  destruction  to  their  worshippers, 
and  they  shall  bum  both  of  them  together,  and  there  shall  shall  be  no  one 
quenching  or  to  quench  them. — All  the  ancient  versions  treat  "jbn  as  an 
abstract,  meaning  strength,  which  agrees  well  with  its  form,  resembling  that 
of  an  infinitive  or  verbal  noun.  But  even  in  that  case,  the  abstract  must  be 
used  for  a  concrete,  i.  e.  strength  for  strong,  which  last  is  the  sense  given  to 


22 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  II,  III,  IV. 


the  word  itself  by  all  the  modern  writers.  Calvin  and  others  understand  by 
the  strong  one  the  idol  viewed  as  a  protector  or  a  tutelary  god,  and  by  fts'fi  his 
maker  and  worshipper,  an  interpretation  which  agrees  in  sense  with  the  one 
given  above,  but  inverts  the  terms,  making  the  idol  to  be  burnt  by  the  idola- 
ter and  not  vice  versa.  But  why  should  the  worshipper  burn  himself  with 
his  idol  ?  A  far  more  coherent  and  impressive  sense  is  yielded  by  the  other 
exposition. — Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Hendewerk  suppose  the  work  (h?k  as  in 
Jer.  22;  13),  by  which  the  strong  man  is  consumed,  to  be  his  conduct  in 
general,  Junius  his  efforts  to  resist  God,  Vitringa  his  contrivances  and  means 
of  safety.  But  the  frequent  mention  of  idols  as  the  work  of  men's  hands, 
and  the  prominence  given  to  idolatry  in  the  immediately  preceding  context, 
seem  to  justify  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  in  attributing  to  fcjftt  that  spe- 
cific meaning  here,  and  in  understanding  the  whole  verse  as  a  prediction  that 
the  very  gods,  in  whom  the  strong  men  of  Jerusalem  now  trusted,  should 
involve  their  worshippers  and  makers  with  themselves  in  total,  instantaneous, 
irrecoverable  ruin. 


CHAPTERS  II,  III,  IV. 


These  chapters  constitute  the  second  prophecy,  the  two  grand  themes 
of  which  are  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  and  intervening  judgments  on  the 
Jews  for  their  iniquities.  The  first  and  greatest  of  these  subjects  occupies 
the  smallest  space,  but  stands  both  at  the  opening  and  the  close  of  the  whole 
prophecy.  Considered  in  relation  to  its  subject,  it  may  therefore  be  conve- 
niently divided  into  three  unequal  parts.  In  the  first,  the  Prophet  foretells 
the  future  exaltation  of  the  church  and  the  accession  of  the  gentiles,  ch. 
2  :  1-4.  In  the  second,  he  sets  forth  the  actual  condition  of  the  church  and 
ks  inevitable  consequences,  ch.  2  :  5 — 4 :  1.  In  the  third,  he  reverts  to  its 
pure,  safe,  and  glorious  condition  under  the  Messiah,  ch.  4  :  2-6.  The 
division  of  the  chapters  is  peculiarly  unfortunate,  the  last  verse  of  the  second 
and  the  first  of  the  fourth  being  both  dissevered  from  their  proper  context. 
The  notion  that  these  chapters  contain  a  series  of  detached  predictions 
(Koppe,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt)  is  now  universally  rejected  even  by  the  Ger- 
mans, who  consider  the  three  chapters,  if  not  the  fifth  (Hitzig),  as  forming 
one  unbroken  prophecy.  As  the  state  of  things  which  it  describes  could 
scarcely  have  existed  in  the  prosperous  reigns  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham  or  in 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   II. 


the  pious  reign  of  Ilezekiah,  it  ia  referred  with  much  probability  to  the  reign 
of  Ahaz  (ties.  Ew,  Efa«  etc.),  when  Judafa  was  dependent  on  a  foreign 

power  and  corrupted  t)y  its  intercourse  with  heathenism.     The  particular 
grounds  of  this  conclusion  will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  interpretation. 


CHAPTER  II. 

This  chapter  contains  an  introductory  prediction  of  the  reign  of  the  Mes- 
siah, and  the  first  part  of  a  threatening  against  Judah. 

After  a  title  similar  to  that  in  ch.  1:1,  the  Prophet  sees  the  church,  at 
some  distant  period,  exalted  and  conspicuous,  and  the  nations  resorting  to  it 
for  instruction  in  the  true  religion,  as  a  consequence  of  which  he  sees  war 
cease  and  universal  peace  prevail,  vs.  2—4. 

These  verses  are  found,  with  very  little  variation,  in  the  fourth  chapter 
of  Micah  (vs.  1-3),  to  explain  which  some  suppose,  that  a  motto  or  quota- 
tion has  been  accidentally  transferred  from  the  margin  to  the  text  of  Isaiah 
(Justi,  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Credner)  ;  others,  that  both  Prophets  quote  from 
Joel  (Vogel,  Hitzig,  Ewald)  ;  others,  that  both  quote  from  an  older  writer 
now  unknown  (Koppe,  Rosenmuller,  Maurer,  De  Wette,  Knobel)  ;  others, 
that  Micah  quotes  from  Isaiah  (Vitringa,  Lowth,  Beckhaus,  Umbreit)  ; 
others,  that  Isaiah  quotes  from  Micah  (J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Hende- 
werk,  Henderson).  This  diversity  of  judgment  may  at  least  suffice  to  show 
how  vain  conjecture  is  in  such  a  case.  The  close  connexion  of  the  passage 
with  the  context,  as  it  stands  in  Micah,  somewhat  favours  the  conclusion  that 
Isaiah  took  the  text  or  theme  of  his  prediction  from  the  younger  though  con- 
temporary prophet.  The  verbal  variations  may  be  best  explained,  however, 
by  supposing  that  they  both  adopted  a  traditional  prediction  current  among 
the  people  in  their  day,  or  that  both  received  the  words  directly  from  the 
Holy  Spirit.  So  long  as  we  have  reason  to  regard  both  places  as  authentic 
and  inspired,  it  matters  little  what  is  the  literary  history  of  either. 

At  the  close  of  this  prediction,  w  liether  borrowed  or  original,  the  Prophet 
suddenly  reverts  to  the  condition  of  the  church  in  his  own  times,  so  different 
from  that  which  had  been  just  foretold,  and  begins  a  description  of  the  pres- 
ent guilt  and  future  punishment  of  Judah,  which  extends  not  only  through 
this  chapter  but  the  next,  including  the  first  verse  of  the  fourth.  The  part 
contained  in  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  may  be  subdivided  into  two  une- 
qual portions,  one  containing  a  description  of  the  sin,  the  other  a  prediction 
of  the  punishment. 

The  first  begins  with  an  exhortation  to  the  Jews  themselves  to  walk  in 
that  light  which- the  gentiles  were  so  eagerly  to  seek  hereafter,  v.  5.     The 


24  ISAIAH,  CHAP.     I. 

Prophet  then  explains  this  exhortation  by  describing  three  great  evils  which 
the  foreign  alliances  of  Judah  had  engendered,  namely,  superstitious  practices 
and  occult  arts ;  unbelieving  dependence  upon  foreign  wealth  and  power ; 
and  idolatry  itself,  vs.  6-8. 

The  rest  of  the  chapter  has  respect  to  the  punishment  of  these  great 
sins.  This  is  first  described  generally  as  humiliation,  such  as  they  deserved 
who  humbled  themselves  to  idols,  and  such  as  tended  to  the  exclusive  exalta- 
tion of  Jehovah,  both  by  contrast  and  by  the  display  of  his  natural  and  moral 
attributes,  vs.  9-11.  This  general  threatening  is  then  amplified  in  a  detailed 
enumeration  of  exalted  objects  which  should  be  brought  low,  ending  again 
with  a  prediction  of  Jehovah's  exaltation  in  the  same  words  as  before,  so  as 
to  form  a  kind  of  choral  or  strophical  arrangement,  vs.  12-17.  The  destruc- 
tion or  rather  the  rejection  of  idols,  as  contemptible  and  useless,  is  then  ex- 
plicitly foretold,  as  an  accompanying  circumstance  of  men's  flight  from  the 
avenging  presence  of  Jehovah,  vs.  18-21.  Here  again  the  strophical  ar- 
rangement reappears  in  the  precisely  similar  conclusions  of  the  nineteenth 
and  twenty-first  verses,  so  that  the  twenty-second  is  as  clearly  unconnected 
with  this  chapter  in  form,  as  it  is  closely  connected  with  the  next  in  sense. 

V.  1.  This  is  the  title  of  the  second  prophecy,  ch.  2-4.  The  word, 
revelation  or  divine  communication,  which  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  saw, 
perceived,  received  by  inspiration,  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  As 
word  is  here  a  synonyme  of  vision  in  ch.  1:1,  there  is  no  need  of  rendering 
"i^'n  what,  thing,  or  things  (Lu.  Cler.  Henders.),  or  Win  prophesied  or  was 
revealed  (Targ.  Low.  Ges.),  in  order  to  avoid  the  supposed  incongruity  of 
seeing  a  word.  For  the  technical  use  of  word  and  vision  in  the  sense  of 
prophecy,  see  1  Sam.  3:1.  Jer.  18:  18. — The  Septuagint,  which  renders 
fcs  against  in  ch.  1:1,  renders  it  here  concerning,  and  on  this  distinction, 
which  is  wholly  arbitrary,  Cyril  gravely  comments. — Hendewerk's  assertion 
that  the  titles,  in  which  ntn  and  •pm  occur,  are  by  a  later  hand,  is  perfectly 
gratuitous. 

V.  2.  The  prophecy  begins  with  an  abrupt  prediction  of  the  exaltation 
of  the  church,  the  confluence  of  nations  to  it,  and  a  general  pacification  as 
the  consequence,  vs.  2-4.  In  this  verse  the  Prophet  sees  the  church  per- 
manently placed  in  a  conspicuous  position,  so  as  to  be  a  source  of  attraction 
to  surrounding  nations.  To  express  this  idea,  he  makes  use  of  terms  which 
are  strictly  applicable  only  to  the  local  habitation  of  the  church  under  the 
old  economy.  Instead  of  saying,  in  modern  phraseology,  that  the  church, 
as  a  society,  shall  become  conspicuous  and  attract  all  nations,  he  represents 
the  mountain  upon  which  the  temple  stood  as  being  raised  and  fixed  above 
the  other  mountains,  so  as  to  be  visible  in  all  directions.     And  it  shall  he 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  II.  25 


(happen,  conic  to  pass,  a  prefatory  formula  of  constant  use  in  prophecy 

the  end  (or  latter  part)  of  the  days  (i.  e.  hereafter)  the  mountain  of  Jeho- 
vah's house  (i.  0,  mount  Zion,  in  the  widest  sense,  including  mount  Moriah 
^here  the  temple  stood)  shall  be  established  (permanently  fixed)* in  the  head 
of  the  mountains  (i.e.  above  them),  and  exalted  from  (away  from  and  by 
implication  more  than  or  higher  than)  the  hills  (a  poetical  equivalent  to 
mountains),  and  the  nations  shall  flow  unto  it. — The  use  of  the  present  tense 
in  rendering  this  verse  (Ges.  Hitz.  Hdwk.)  is  inconsistent  with  the  phrase 
="~-n  n*$jiti ,  which  requires  the  future  proper  (Ew.  Hn.).  That  phrase, 
according  to  the  Rabbins,  always  means  the  days  of  the  Messiah  ;  according 
to  Lightfoot,  the  end  of  the  old  dispensation.  In  itself  it  is  indefinite. — The 
sense  of  ybj  here  is  not  prepared  (Vulg.)  but  fixed,  established,  rendered 
permanently  visible  (LXX.  iarai  ipcparf'g). — It  was  not  to  be  established  on 
the  top  of  the  mountains  (Vulg.  Vitr.  DeW.  Umbr.),  but  either  a t  the  head 
(Hitz.  Ew.)  or  simply  high  among  the  mountains,  which  idea  is  expressed  by 
other  words  in  the  parallel  clause,  and  by  the  same  words  in  1  Kings  21  :  10, 
12.  That  mount  Zion  should  be  taken  up  and  carried  by  the  other  hills  (J.  D. 
Mich.)  is  neither  the  literal  nor  figurative  meaning  of  the  Prophet's  words. — 
The  verb  in  the  last  clause  is  always  used  to  signify  a  confluence  of  nations. 

V.  3.  This  confluence  of  nations  is  described  more  fully,  and  its  motive 
stated  in  their  own  words,  namely,  a  desire  to  be  instructed  in  the  true  reli- 
gion, of  which  Jerusalem  or  Zion,  under  the  old  dispensation,  was  the  sole 
depository.  And  many  nations  shall  go  (set  out,  put  themselves  in  motion) 
and  shall  say  (to  one  another),  Go  ye  (as  a  formula  of  exhortation,  where 
the  English  idiom  requires  come),  and  we  will  ascend  (or  let  us  ascend,  for 
which  the  Hebrew  has  no  other  form)  to  the  mountain  of  Jehovah  (where 
his  house  is,  where  he  dwells),  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  and  he 
will  teach  us  of  his  ways  (the  ways  in  which  he  requires  us  to  walk),  and  we 
w ill  go  in  his  paths  (a  synonymous  expression).  For  out  of  Zion  shall  go 
forth  law  (the  true  religion,  as  a  rule  of  duty),  and  the  word  of  Jehovah 
(the  true  religion,  as  a  revelation)  from  Jerusalem.  These  last  words  may 
be  either  the  words  of  the  gentiles,  telling  why  they  looked  to  Zion  as  a 
source  of  saving  knowledge,  or  the  words  of  the  Prophet,  telling  why  the 
truth  must  be  thus  diffused,  namely,  because  it  had  been  given  to  the  church 
for  this  very  purpose.  Cyril's  idea  that  the  clause  relates  to  the  taking 
away  of  God's  word  from  the  Jewish  church  (xaraliXomi  ji]v  Zwv)  is  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  context. — Compare  John  4 :  22.  Luke  24  :  47. — The 
common  version  many  people  conveys  to  a  modern  ear  the  wrong  sense  many 
persons,  and  was  only  used  for  want  of  such  a  plural  form  as  peoples,  which, 
though  employed  by  Lowth  and  others,  has  never  become  current,  and  was 
certainly  not  so  when  the  Bible  was  translated,  as  appears  from  the  circum- 


26 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  II. 


locution  used  instead  of  it  in  Gen.  25 :  23.  The  plural  form  is  here  essen- 
tial to  the  meaning. — Go  is  not  here  used  as  the  opposite  of  come,  but  as 
denoting  active  motion  (Vitr.  movebunt  se.  J.  D.  Mich,  werden  sich  aufma- 
chen). — The  word  ascend  is  not  used  in  reference  to  an  alleged  Jewj|h 
notion  that  the  Holy  Land  was  physically  higher  than  all  other  countries, 
nor  simply  to  the  natural  site  of  Jerusalem,  nor  even  to  its  moral  elevation 
as  the  seat  of  the  true  religion,  but  to  the  new  elevation  and  conspicuous 
position  just  ascribed  to  it. — The  subjunctive  construction  that  he  may  teach 
(Lu.  Vitr.  Ges.  Ew.  etc.)  is  rather  paraphrastical  and  exegetical  than  simply 
expressive  of  the  sense  of  the  original,  which  implies  hope  as  well  as  pur- 
pose.— The  preposition  before  ways  is  not  to  be  omitted  as  a  mere  connec- 
tive, '  teach  us  his  ways '  (Ges.  Hn.  Um.)  ;  nor  taken  in  a  local  sense,  '  out 
of  his  ways'  (Knobel)  ;  but  either  partitively,  'some  of  his  ways'  (Vitr.), 
or  as  denoting  the  subject  of  instruction,  '  concerning  his  ways,'  which  is  the 
usual  explanation. — The  substitution  of  doctrine  or  instruction  for  law  (J.  D. 
Mich.  Hitz.  Hendew.  De  W.  Ew.)  is  contrary  to  usage,  and  weakens  the 
expression. 

V.  4.  He  who  appeared  in  the  preceding  verses  as  the  lawgiver  and 
teacher  of  the  nations,  is  now  represented  as  an  arbiter  or  umpire,  ending 
their  disputes  by  a  pacific  intervention,  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  which 
war  ceases,  the  very  knowledge  of  the  art  is  lost,  and  its  implements  applied 
to  other  uses.  This  prediction  was  not  fulfilled  in  the  general  peace  under 
Augustus,  which  was  only  temporary ;  nor  is  it  now  fulfilled.  The  event 
is  suspended  on  a  previous  condition,  viz.  the  confluence  of  the  nations  to 
the  church,  which  has  not  yet  taken  place ;  a  strong  inducement  to  diffuse 
the  gospel,  which,  in  the  meantime,  is  peaceful  in  its  spirit,  tendency,  and 
actual  effect,  wherever  and  so  far  as  it  exerts  its  influence  without  obstruc- 
tion. And  he  shall  judge  (or  arbitrate)  between  the  nations,  and  decide  for 
(or  respecting)  many  peoples.  And  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plough- 
shares and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooJcs.  Nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword 
against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more.  To  the  figure  in  the 
last  clause  Lowth  quotes  a  beautiful  parallel  in  Martial's  epigram  entitled 
Falx  ex  ense : 

Pax  me  certa  ducis  placidos  curvavit  in  usus  : 
Agricolae  nunc  sum,  militis  ante  fui. 

The  image  here  presented  is  reversed  by  Joel  (3:  10),  and  by  Virgil 
and  Ovid  (Ma.  7  :  635.  Georg.  1 :  506.  Ov.  Fast.  1  :  697).— The  question 
whether  tPfia  means  ploughshares  (Vulg.  Lu.  Low.),  coulters  (Rosen.  Hn. 
Kn.)  spades  (Dutch  Vs.),  hoes  or  mattocks  (Ges.  Hitz.  Ew.  Um.),is  of  no 
exegetical  importance,  as  the  whole  idea  meant  to  be  expressed  is  the  con- 


ISAIAH,  CIIA  I*.  II.  27 

version  of  martial  weapons  into  implements  of  husbandry.  Hook,  in  old 
English,  is  a  crooked  knife  such  as  a  sir/;/,  .  w  liicli  is  not  however  here 
meant  (LXX.  Vulg.  Lu.),  but  a  knife  for  pruning  vines. — .\ot  framing  war 
is  something   more    than   not  continuing  to   practise  it  (Calv.),  and  signifies 

their  ceasing  to  know  how  to  practise  it.  To  judge  is  here  not  to  rule 
(Calv.  Vitr.)  which  is  too  vague,  nor  to  punish  (Cocc.)  which  is  too  specific, 
but  to  arbitrate  or  act  as  umpire  (Cler.  Ges.  etc.),  as  appears  from  the 
effect  described,  and  also  from  the  use  of  the  preposition  "pa,  meaning  not 
merely  among,  with  reference  to  the  sphere  of  jurisdiction,  but  between,  with 
reference  to  contending  parties.  The  parallel  verb  does  not  here  mean  to 
rebuke  (Jun.  Eng.  Vs.)  nor  to  convince  of  the  truth  in  general  (Calv.  Cocc. 
Vitr.)  or  of  the  evil  of  war  in  particular  (Hendew.),  but  is  used  as  a  poetical 
equivalent  to  -r:\  which  is  used  in  this  sense  with  the  same  preposition 
Ezek.  34 :  17. — On  the  use  of  the  present  tense  in  rendering  this  verse 
(Ges.  De  W.  Ew.)  vide  supra  ad  v.  2. 

V.  5.  From  this  distant  prospect  of  the  calling  of  the  gentiles,  the  Pro- 
phet now  reverts  to  his  own  times  and  countrymen,  and  calls  upon  them  not 
to  be  behind  the  nations  in  the  use  of  their  distinguishing  advantages.  If 
even  the  heathen  were  one  day  to  be  enlightened,  surely  they  who  were 
already  in  possession  of  the  light  ought  to  make  use  of  it.  O  house  of  Jacob 
(family  of  Israel,  the  church  or  chosen  people)  come  ye  (literally,  go  ye,  as 
in  v.  3)  and  we  will  go  (or  let  us  walk,  including  himself  in  the  exhortation) 
in  the  light  of  Jehovah  (in  the  path  of  truth  and  duty  upon  which  the  light 
of  revelation  shines).  To  regard  these  as  the  words  of  the  Jews  themselves 
(Targ.  '  they  of  the  house  of  Jacob  shall  say,  etc.),  or  of  the  gentiles  to  the 
Jews  (Jarchi),  or  to  one  another  (Sanctius),  is  forced  and  arbitrary  in  a  high 
degree.  The  light  is  mentioned,  not  in  allusion  to  the  illumination  of  the 
court  of  the  women  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles  (Deyling.  Obs.  Sacr.  ii.  p. 
221),  but  as  a  common  designation  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  Christ  himself. 
(Prov.  6  :  23.    Ps.  119  :  105.    Isai.  51 :  4.    Acts  26  :  23.     2  Cor.  4  :  4.) 

V.  6.  The  exhortation  in  v.  5  implied  that  the  Jews  were  not  actually 
walking  in  God's  light,  but  were  alienated  from  him,  a  fact  which  is  now 
explicitly  asserted  and  the  reason  of  it  given,  viz.  illicit  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  as  evinced  by  the  adoption  of  their  superstitious  practices, 
reliance  on  their  martial  and  pecuniary  aid,  and  last  but  worst  of  all,  the 
worship  of  their  idols.  In  this  verse,  the  first  of  these  effects  is  ascribed  to 
intercourse  \\  ith  those  eastern  countries,  which  are  always  represented  by 
the  ancients  as  the  cradle  of  the  occult  arts  and  sciences.  As  if  he  had  said, 
I  thus  exhort,  O  Lord,  thy  chosen  people,  because  thou  hast  forsaken  thy 
people,  became  they  are  replenished  from  the  East  and  (full  of)  soothsayers 


28 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  II. 


like  the  Philistines,  and  with  the  children  of  strangers  they  abound. — The 
various  renderings  of  ^3  by  therefore  (Eng.  Vs.),  verily  (Low.),  surely 
(Henders.),  but  (Hendew.  Ew.),  etc.,  all  arise  from  misconception  or  neglect 
of  the  connexion,  which  requires  the  common  meaning  for,  because  (Sept 
Vulg.  Ges.  Hitz.  Um.  Bar.).  Abarbenel  supposes  these  words  to  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  ten  tribes,  <  thou,  O  house  of  Jacob,  hast  forsaken  thy  people' 
Judah.  Others  suppose  them  to  be  addressed  to  Judah,  but  in  this  sense, 
'  thou,  O  house  of  Jacob,  hast  forsaken  thy  nation,'  i.  e.  thy  national  honour, 
religion,  and  allegiance  (Saad.  J.  D.  Mich.  Hitz.).  This  last  is  a  forced 
construction,  and  the  other  is  at  variance  with  the  context,  while  both  are 
inconsistent  with  the  usage  of  the  verb,  which  is  constantly  used  to  denote 
God's  alienation  from  his  people  and  especially  his  giving  them  up  to 
their  enemies  (Judg.  6:13.  2  Kings  21 :  14.  Jer.  7  :  29.  23  :  33).— Filled 
cannot  mean  inspired  as  in  Micah  3 :  8  (Vitr.),  for  even  there  the  idea  is 
suggested  by  the  context. — J.  D.  Michaelis  thinks  fifij?  here  synonymous 
with  n^j?  the  east  wind,  '  full  of  the  east  wind,'  i.  e.  of  delusion  (Job.  15  :  2), 
which  is  wholly  arbitrary.  All  the  ancient  versions  supply  as  before  this 
word,  and  two  of  them  explain  the  phrase  to  mean  as  of  old  (Sept.  wg  to 
an  uqx^'-  Vulg.  sicut  olim)  ;  but  all  modern  writers  give  it  the  local  sense 
of  east,  applied  somewhat  indefinitely  to  the  countries  east  of  Palestine, 
especially  those  watered  by  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  Some  read  they  are 
full  of  the  east,  i.  e.  of  its  people  or  its  superstitions  (Calv.  Ges.  Ros.  Hitz. 
De  W.  Hn.  Um.)  ;  others  more  than  the  east  (Lu.  Dutch  Vs.)  ;  but  the  true 
sense  is  no  doubt  from  the  east  (Cler.  ex  oriente.  Ewald,  vom  Morgen- 
lande  her),  denoting  not  mere  influence  or  imitation,  but  an  actual  influx  of 
diviners  from  that  quarter. — Whether  the  root  of  D**M5j  be  )*9  an  eye 
(Vitr.),  b(32  a  cloud  (Ros.),  or  £*  to  cover  (Ges.),  it  clearly  denotes  the 
practitioners  of  occult  arts.  Henderson  treats  it  as  a  finite  verb  (they  prac- 
tise magic)  ;  the  English  Version  supplies  are  ;  but  the  construction  which 
connects  it  with  the  verb  of  the  preceding  clause,  so  that  he  first  says  whence 
they  are  filled  and  then  wherewith,  agrees  best  with  the  mention  of  repletion 
or  abundance  both  before  and  after.  The  Philistines  are  here  mentioned 
rather  by  way  of  comparison  than  as  an  actual  source  of  the  corruption. 
That  the  Jews  were  familiar  with  their  superstitions  may  be  learned  from 
1  Sam.  6:2.  2  Kings  1 :  2. — The  last  verb  does  not  mean  they  clap  their 
hands  in  applause,  derision,  or  joy  (Calv.  Vitr.  Eng.  Vs.  they  please  them- 
selves), nor  they  strike  hands  in  agreement  or  alliance  (Ges.  Ros.  De  W. 
Hg.  Hk.  Hn.  Um.),  but  they  abound,  as  in  Syriac,  and  in  1  Kings  20:  10 
(J.  H.  Mich.  Cler.  Eng.  Vers.  marg.  Ewald).  The  causative  sense  multi- 
ply (Lowth)  does  not  suit  the  parallelism  so  exactly.  The  Septuagint  and 
Targum  apply  the  clause  to  alliances  by  marriage  with  the  heathen. — By 
children  of  strangers  we  are  not  to  understand  the  fruits,  i.  e.  doctrines  and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  II.  29 


practices  ofstn  (Vitr.),  nor  is  it  merely  an  expression  of  contempt,  as 

Lowth  and  Gesenhis  seem  to  intimate  by  rendering  it  strange  or  spurious 
brood.  It  rather  means  strangers  themselves,  not  strange  gods  or  their  chil- 
dren, i.  e.  worshippers  (J.  D.  Mich.),  but  foreigners  considered  ai  ud- 
ants  of  a  strange  stock,  and  therefore  as  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel. — The  conjectural  emendations  of  the  text  by  reading  cop  for  zip 
(Brent.),  "»TO  for  "n^a  (Hitz.),  and  m  rrj:  for  rtnosa  (Houbigant),  are 
wholly  unnecessary. — For  the  form  ITO&S,  see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  44.  2.  2. 

V.  7.  The  second  proof  of  undue  intercourse  with  heathen  nations, 
which  the  Prophet  mentions,  is  the  influx  of  foreign  money  and  of  foreign 
troops,  with  which  he  represents  the  land  as  filled.  And  his  land  (referring 
to  the  singular  noun  people  in  v.  6)  is  filled  with  silifer  and  gold,  and  there 
is  no  end  to  his  treasures ;  and  his  land  is  filled  with  horses,  and  there  is 
no  end  to  his  chariots. — The  common  interpretation  makes  this  verse  descrip- 
tive of  domestic  wealth  and  luxury.  But  these  would  hardly  have  been 
placed  between  the  superstitions  and  the  idols,  with  which  Judah  had  been 
flooded  from  abroad.  Besides,  this  interpretation  fails  to  account  for  gold 
and  silver  being  here  ''combined  with  horses  and  chariots.  Hitzig  supposes 
the  latter  to  be  mentioned  only  as  articles  of  luxury ;  but  as  such  they  are 
never  mentioned  elsewhere,  not  even  in  the  case  of  Absalom  and  Naaman 
to  which  he  appeals,  both  of  whom  were  military  chiefs  as  well  as  nobles. 
Even  the  chariots  of  the  peaceful  Solomon  were  probably  designed  for  mar- 
tial show.  The  horses  and  chariots  of  the  Old  Testament  are  horses  and 
chariots  of  war.  The  common  riding  animals  were  mules  and  asses,  the 
latter  of  which,  as  contrasted  with  the  horse,  are  emblematic  of  peace  (Zech. 
9:9.  Matth.  21 :  7).  But  on  the  supposition  that  the  verse  has  refer- 
ence to  undue  dependence  upon  foreign  powers,  the  money  and  the  armies 
of  the  latter  would  be  naturally  named  together.  Thus  understood,  this 
verse  affords  no  proof  that  the  prophecy  belongs  to  the  prosperous  reign  of 
Uzziah  or  Jotham,  since  it  merely  represents  the  land  as  flooded  with  foreign 
gold  and  foreign  troops,  a  description  rather  applicable  to  the  reign  of  Ahaz. 
The  form  of  expression,  too,  suggests  the  idea  of  a  recent  acquisition,  as  the 
strict  sense  of  the  verb  is  not  it  is  full  (E.  V.  Ges.  Hn.),  nor  even  it  is  filled, 
but  it  was  or  has  been  filled  (LXX.  Vulg.  Hg.  Ew.  Kn.). — There  is  no 
need  of  explaining  the  words  no  end  as  expressing  an  insatiable  desire 
(Calv.),  or  as  the  boastful  language  of  the  people  (Vitr.),  since  the  natural 
hyperbole  employed  by  the  Prophet  is  one  by  which  no  reader  can  be  puz- 
zled or  deceived.  The  intimate  connexion  of  this  verse  with  that  before  it 
is  disturbed  by  omitting  and  at  the  beginning  (Ges.  Hg.  Urn.),  nor  is  there 
any  need  of  rendering  it  also  (E.  V.),  yea  (Hn.),  or  so  that  (Hk.  Ew.), 
either  here  or  in  the  middle  of  the  sentence. 


30  SAIAH,  CHAP.   II. 

V.  8.  The  third  and  greatest  evil  flowing  from  this  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations  was  idolatry  itself,  which  was  usually  introduced  under  the 
cloak  of  mere  political  alliances  (see  e.  g.  2  Kings  16:  10).  Here  as  else- 
where the  terms  used  to  describe  it  are  contemptuous  in  a  high  degree. 
And  his  land  is  filled  with  idols  (properly  nonentities,  '  gods  which  yet 
are  no  gods,'  Jer.  2 :  11;  '  for  we  know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,' 
1  Cor.  8 :  4),  to  the  work  of  their  hands  they  bow  down,  to  that  which  their 
fingers  have  made,  one  of  the  great  absurdities  charged  by  the  Prophets  on 
idolaters,  "  as  if  that  could  be  a  god  to  them  which  was  not  only  a  creature 
but  their  own  creature"  (Matthew  Henry). — For  idols  the  Septuagint  has 
abominations  (fideivypdzmv),  but  the  true  sense  of  the  Hebrew  term  is  that 
expressed  by  Clericus,  diis  nihili. — For  their  hands,  their  fingers,  the 
Hebrew  has  his  hands,  his  fingers,  an  enallage  which  does  not  obscure  the 
sense  and  is  retained  in  the  last  clause  by  Cocceius  and  Clericus  (digiti 
ipsius).  Vitringa  has  digiti  cujusque.  J.  D.  Michaelis  makes  the  verb 
singular  (jeder  betet).     Barnes  has  his  hands,  but  their  fingers. 

V.  9.  Here  the  Prophet  passes  from  the  sin  to  its  punishment,  or  rather 
simultaneously  alludes  to  both,  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  being  naturally 
applicable  as  well  to  voluntary  humiliation  in  sin  as  to  compulsory  humilia- 
tion in  punishment,  while  the  verb  in  the  last  clause  would  suggest  of  course 
to  a  Jewish  reader  the  twofold  idea  of  pardoning  and  lifting  up.  They  who 
bowed  themselves  to  idols  should  be  bowed  down  by  the  mighty  hand  of 
God,  instead  of  being  raised  up  from  their  wilful  self-abasement  by  the  par- 
don of  their  sins.  The  relative  futures  denote  not  only  succession  in  time 
but  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  And  so  (by  this  means,  for  this  reason) 
the  mean  man  (not  in  the  modern  but.  the  old  sense  of  inferior,  low  in  rank) 
is  bowed  down,  and  the  great  man  is  brought  low,  and  do  not  thou  (O  Lord) 
forgive  them.  This  prayer,  for  such  it  is,  may  be  understood  as  expressing, 
not  so  much  the  Prophet's  own  desire,  as  the  certainty  of  the  event,  arising 
from  the  righteousness  of  God.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  departing 
from  the  uniform  usage  of  the  future  with  Va  as  a  negative  imperative,  by 
rendering  it  thou  dost  not  (Ges.  Hg.),  wilt  not  (Lu.  Vitr.  Low.  Hn.),  canst 
not  (J.  D.  Mich.  De  W.  Hk.)  or  mayest  not  forgive  (Um.  Kn.).  The  strict 
translation  is  as  old  as  the  Vulgate  (ne  demittas)  and  as  late  as  Ewald 
(vergib  ihnen  nicht). — Whether  B5*l|  and  ffix,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
denote  a  difference  in  rank  or  estimation,  like  the  Greek  avyp  and  av&Qomog, 
the  Latin  vir  and  homo,  and  the  German  Mann  and  Mensch,  when  in  anti- 
thesis, is  a  question  of  no  moment,  because  even  if  they  are  synonymous, 
denoting  simply  man  and  man,  this  man  and  that  man,  one  man  and  another 
(Hg.  Hk.  Kn.),  their  combination  here  must  be  intended  to  describe  men  of 
all  sorts,  or  men  in  fgeneral. — On  the  relative  futures,  see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr. 
$>  '  52.  4.  c.     On  the  construction  with  &$,  Nordheimer  <§><§>  996.  1065. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   II.  SI 

V.  10.  Instead  of  .simply  predicting  thai  their  sinful  course  should  be 
interrupted  bj  a  terrible  manifestation  of  God's  presence,  the  Prophet  \i>- 

him'ns  already  come  or  near  at  hand,  and  addressing  the  people  as  an  indi- 
vidual, or  singling  out  one  of  their  nuinher,  exhorts  him  to  take  refuge  under 
ground  or  in  the  rock-,  an  advice  peculiarly  significant  in  Palestine,  a  coun- 
try full  of  caves,  often  used,  if  not  originally  made,  for  this  very  purpose 
(1  Sain.  13:  6.  14:  11.  Judg.  6:2).  Go  into  the  rock  and  hide  thee 
in  tin  dust,  from  before  the  terror  of  Jehovah  and  from  the  glory  of  his 
majesty.  The  nouns  in  the  last  clause  differ,  according  to  their  derivation, 
very  much  as  sublimity  and  beauty  do  in  English,  and  express  in  combina- 
tion the  idea  of  sublime  beauty  or  beautiful  sublimity.  The  tone  of  this 
address  is  not  sarcastic  (Glassius)  but  terrific. — By  the  terror  of  Jehovah 
seems  to  be  intended  not  the  feeling  of  fear  which  he  inspires  (E.  V. 
for  fear  of  the  Lord)  but  some  terrible  manifestation  of  his  presence.  The 
preposition,  therefore,  should  not  be  taken  in  the  vague  sense  of  for,  on 
account  of  (J un.  Cocc.  E.  V.  Vitr.),  but  in  its  proper  local  sense  of  from 
(Low.  Hn.),  before  (J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  Hk.  Ew.  Um.),  or  from  before. — The 
force  and  beauty  of  the  passage  are  impaired  by  converting  the  im- 
perative into  a  future  (Targ.),  or  the  singular  imperative  into  a  plural 
(Sept.  Pesh.  Hg.). — Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  Arabic, 
and  a  single  manuscript,  supplies  the  words  when  he  ariseth  to  strike 
the  earth  with  terror,  from  the  last  clause  of  the  nineteenth  and  twenty- 
first  verses. 

■■% 

V.  11.  As  the  Prophet,  in  the  preceding  verse,  views  the  terror  of  Jeho- 
vah as  approaching,  so  here  he  views  it  as  already  past,  and  describes  the 
effect  which  it  has  wrought.  The  eyes  of  the  loftiness  of  man  (i.  e.  his 
haughty  looks)  are  cast  down,  and  the  height  (or  pride)  of  men  is  brought 
low,  and  Jehovah  alone  is  exalted  in  that  day,  not  only  in  fact,  but  in  the 
estimation  of  his  creatures,  as  the  passive  form  here  used  may  intimate. — 
Man  and  men,  the  same  words  that  occur  in  v.  9,  are  variously  rendered 
here  by  repeating  the  same  noun  (Sept.  Pesh.  Lu.  Calv.  Vitr.  Hn.)  by 
using  two  equivalents  (Lowth,  men  and  mortals,  Ewald,  men  and  people) 
or  by  an  antithesis  (Vulg.  hominis,  virorum). — The  verb  in  the  first  clause 
agrees  in  form  with  the  nearest  antecedent,  or  the  whole  phrase  may  be 
regarded  as  the  subject  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  $  145.  1),  as  in  Ewald's  version  of 
it  by  a  triple  compound  (Hochmuthsaugen). 

V.  12.  The  general  threatening  of  humiliation  is  now  applied  specific- 
ally to  a  variety  of  lofty  objects  in  which  the  people  might  be  supposed  to 
delight  and  trust,  vs.  12-16.  This  enumeration  is  connected  with  what 
goes  before,  by  an  explanation  of  the  phrase  used  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh 


32  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  II. 


verse.  I  say  that  day,  for  there  is  a  day  to  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (i.  e.  an 
appointed  time  for  the  manifestation  of  his  power)  upon  (or  against)  every 
thing  high  and  lofty,  and  upon  every  thing  exalted,  and  it  comes  (orfchall 
come)  down. — The  common  construction,  for  the  day  of  Jehovah  is  or  shall 
be  (Sept.  Vulg.  Calv.  E.  V.  Vitr.  Low.  Bar.),  does  not  account  for  the  use  of 
the  conjunction  or  the  preposition,  the  former  of  which  refers  to  the  last 
words  of  the  verse  preceding,  and  the  latter  denotes  the  relation  of  possession  : 
there  is  a  day  to  Jehovah,  i.  e.  he  has  a  day  (Ewald),  has  it  appointed 
(Cocc.  Jun.  J.  D.  Mich.),  has  it  in  reserve,  or  less  exactly,  holds  a  day 
(Hitzig)  or  holds  a  judgment-day  (Gesenius). — The  specific  sense  of  b§, 
against  (Jun.  Cler.  Vitr.  Low.  Bar.  Hen.),  may  be  considered  as  included 
in  the  wider  one  of  on. — The  version  every  one  (Sept.  Jun.  E.V.)  re- 
stricts the  phrase  too  much  to  persons,  which  is  only  a  part  of  the  idea  con- 
veyed by  the  expression  every  thing  (Lu.  Cocc.  Vitr.  J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  etc.). 
To  refer  one  clause  to  persons  and  the  other  to  things  (Calv.  Barn.)  is  wholly 
arbitrary. — The  same  objection  may  be  made  to  the  common  version  of 
rt»|  by  proud,  instead  of  its  primary  and  comprehensive  sense  of  high 
(Ewald.  Gesen.  in  Lex.). — The  translation  of  Vs©  as  an  adjective,  implying 
that  the  day  of  Jehovah  was  against  high  and  low  (Calv.  in  Comm.  Cocc. 
J.  D.  Mich.),  is  inconsistent  with  the  usage  of  the  word,  and  not  so  well 
suited  to  the  parallel  clause,  in  which  lofty  things  alone  are  threatened  with 
humiliation. 

V.  13.  To  convey  the  idea  of  lofty  and  imposing  objects,  the  Prophet 
makes  use,  not  of  symbols,  but  of  specimens,  selected  from  among  the  things 
of  this  class  most  familiar  to  his  readers,  beginning  with  the  two  noblest 
species  of  forest-trees.  And  on  all  the  cedars  of  Lebanon  (or  the  White 
Mountain,  the  chain  dividing  Palestine  from  Syria),  and  on  all  the  oaks  of 
Bashan  (now  called  El  Bethenyeh,  a  mountainous  district,  east  of  Jordan, 
famous  of  old  for  its  pastures  and  oak-forests). — Cedars  and  oaks  are  sup- 
posed by  some  to  be  here  named,  as  emblems  of  great  men  in  general  (Targ. 
Jerome.  Vitr.  Low.  Ges.),  or  of  the  great  men  of  Syria  and  Israel  distinc- 
tively (Grotius)  ;  but  this  is  not  in  keeping  with  the  subsequent  context,  in 
which  some  things  are  mentioned,  which  cannot  be  understood  as  emblems, 
but  only  as  samples  of  their  several  classes.  .  The  application  of  the  terms 
to  the  oak  and  cedar  wood  used  in  the  buildings  erected  by  Uzziah  and 
Jotham,  (Knobel)  is  equally  at  variance  with  the  context  and  good  taste. 
That  they  do  not  refer  to  the  actual  prostration  of  the  forests  of  Palestine 
or  the  neighbouring  countries  by  a  tempest  (Ros.  Ew.),  may  be  inferred 
from  the  impossibility  of  so  explaining  all  the  analogous  expressions  which 
follow. — On  the  trees  and  places  mentioned  in  this  verse,  see  Robinson's 
Palestine,  vol.  hi.  p.  440,  and  Appendix,  p.  158. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  II.  33 

V.  14.  The  mention  of  Lebanon  and  Bashan  in  v.  13  now  leads  to  that 
of  mountains  in  general,  as  lofty  objects  in  themselves,  and  therefore  helping 
to  complete  the  general  conception  of  high  things,  which  the  Prophet 
threatens  with  humiliation.  And  upon  all  the  high  mountains  and  upon  all 
the  elevated  hills. — For  reasons  given  under  the  preceding  verse,  this  cannot 
be  regarded  as  a  threatening  against  states  and  governments  (Lowth),  or 
against  the  mountaineers  of  Palestine  (Oecolampadius,  Musculus),  or  against 
the  fortresses  erected  by  Jotham  in  the  highlands  of  Judah  (Knobel),  or 
against  the  fastnesses  to  which  they  had  recourse  in  times  of  danger  (Barnes), 
but  must  be  explained  as  an  additional  specification  of  the  general  statement 
in  v.  12,  that  every  high  thing  should  be  humbled. 

V.  15.  To  trees  and  hills  he  now  adds  walls  and  towers,  as  a  third  class 
of  objects  with  which  the  ideas  of  loftiness  and  strength  are  commonly  asso- 
ciated. And  upon  every  high  tower  and  upon  every  fenced  wall,  literally, 
cut  off,  i.  e.  rendered  inaccessible  by  being  fortified. — Lowth  and  others 
suppose  these  to  be  named  as  symbols  of  military  strength,  while  Knobel 
supposes  an  allusion  to  the  fortifications  built  by  Jotham  and  Uzziah,  and 
Hitzig  assumes  a  transition  just  at  this  point  from  emblematical  to  literal 
expressions ;  all  which  is  more  or  less  at  variance  with  the  context. 

V.  16.  The  Prophet  now  concludes  his  catalogue  of  lofty  and  con- 
spicuous objects  by  adding,  first,  as  a  specific  item,  maritime  vessels  of  the 
largest  class,  and  then  a  general  expression,  summing  up  the  whole  in  one 
descriptive  phrase,  as  things  attractive  and  imposing  to  the  eye.  And  upon 
all  ships  of  Tarshish  (such  as  were  built  to  navigate  the  whole  length  of 
the  Mediterranean  sea)  and  upon  all  images  (i.  e.  visible  objects)  of  desire, 
or  rather  admiration  and  delight. — It  is  a  very  old  opinion  that  Tarshish 
means  the  sea,  and  ships  of  Tarshish  sea-faring  vessels  (Sept.  nXoiov  &a- 
laaarig.  Luther,  Schiffe  im  Meer.  Cocceius,  naves  oceani)  as  distinguished 
from  mere  coast  or  river  craft  (Piscator).  From  the  earliest  times,  however, 
it  has  also  been  explained  as  the  name  of  a  place,  either  Tarsus  in  Cilicia 
(Josephus.  Targ.  on  Chron.)  or  Cilicia  itself  (Hartmann),  or  Carthage  (Ka 
Zqduv  Sept.  alibi),  or  a  port  in  Ethiopia  (Hensler),  or  Africa  in  general 
(atp'nEK  Targ.  on  Jer.  and  Kings),  or  a  port  in  India  (Jerome  on  Jer.  10  :  9. 
Arabic  Vs.  I  Kings  ch.  10)  or,  which  is  now  the  common  opinion,  Tar- 
tessus,  a  Phenician  settlement  in  the  south-west  of  Spain,  between  the 
mouths  of  the  Baetis  or  Guadalquivir,  sometimes  put  for  the  extreme  west 
(Ps.  72:  10).  As  the  principal  maritime  trade,  with  which  the  Hebrews 
were  acquainted,  was  to  this  region,  ships  of  Tarshish  would  suggest  the 
idea  of  the  largest  class  of  vessels,  justly  included  in  this  catalogue  of  lofty 
and  imposing  objects.     To  suppose  a  direct  allusion  either  to  commercial 

3 


34  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  II. 

wealth  or  naval  strength  (Lowth  al.)  is  inconsistent  with  the  context, 
although  these  ideas  would  of  course  be  suggested  by  association.  Most 
writers  understand  the  last  clause,  like  the  first,  as  a  specific  addition  to  the 
foregoing  catalogue,  denoting  some  particular  object  or  class  of  objects,  such 
as  pictures  (E.  V.  Gill  <  pictures  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  angels, 
saints,  etc.')  statues,  (J.  H.  Mich.  Doderlein.  Ros.),  lofty  images  or  obelisks 
(Ewald),  palaces  (Targ.  Jon.),  tapestry  (Calv.),  ships  (Sept.  na  av  &tar 
ffloicov  xulXovg.  Henderson  <  all  the  vessels  of  delightful  appearance')  or 
their  decorated  sterns,  '  pictae  carinae'  (Vitr.  J.  D.  Mich.  Hg.)  or  their  gay 
flags  and  streamers  (Gesenius  in  Thesauro).  But  this  indefinite  diversity  of 
explanation,  as  well  as  the  general  form  of  the  expression,  makes  it  probable 
that  this  clause,  notwithstanding  the  parallelism,  was  intended  as  a  general 
expression  for  such  lofty  and  imposing  objects  as  had  just  been  enumerated, 
— *  cedars,  oaks,  mountains,  hills,  towers,  walls,  ships,  and  in  short,  all 
attractive  and  majestic  objects'  (Vulg.  omne  quod  visu  pulchrum  est.  Ges. 
ad  loc.  De  W.  Hk.  Urn.  Bar.).  Even  Lowth's  translation,  every  lovely 
work  of  art ,  is,  on  this  hypothesis,  too  much  restricted.  The  interpretation 
which  has  now  been  given  is  confirmed  by  the  use  of  the  analogous  prosaic 
phrase  rrn^n  ^3  to  close  and  sum  up  an  enumeration  of  particulars.  Kno- 
bel,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  this  illustration,  cites  as  examples  2  Chron. 
32 :  27.  36 :  10.  Nah.  2 :  10. — For  an  argument  in  favour  of  regarding 
Tarshish  as  the  name  of  Carthage,  see  Murray's  Encyclopaedia  of  Geogra- 
phy, Book  I.  ch.  1.  §  4.  According  to  Abulfeda,  the  Arabic  geographer, 
Tunis  was  anciently  called  Tarsis. 

V.  17.  This  verse,  by  repeating  the  terms  of  v.  11,  brings  us  back  from 
details  to  the  general  proposition  which  they  were  designed  to  illustrate  and 
enforce,  and  at  the  same  time  has  the  effect  of  a  strophical  arrangement,  in 
which  the  same  burden  or  chorus  recurs  at  stated  intervals.  And  (thus,  by 
this  means,  or  in  this  way)  shall  the  loftiness  of  man  be  cast  down,  and  the 
pride  of  men  be  brought  low,  and  Jehovah  alone  be  exalted  in  that  day. 
Or,  retaining  the  form  of  the  first  two  verbs,  which  are  not  passive  but  neu- 
ter, and  exchanging  the  future  for  the  present,  the  sentence  may  be  thus 
translated.  So  sinks  the  loftiness  of  man  and  bows  the  pride  of  men, 
and  Jehovah  alone  is  exalted  in  that  day. — For  the  syntax  of  the  first  clause, 
vide  supra  ad  v.  11.     Cf.  Ewald's  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  567.  Gesenius,  §  144. 

V.  18.  To  the  humiliation  of  all  lofty  things  the  Prophet  now  adds  the 
entire  disappearance  of  their  idols.  And  the  idols  (as  for  the  idols)  the 
whole  shall  pass  away. — The  construction  he  shall  utterly  abolish  or  cause 
to  disappear  (Calv.  E.  V.  Bar.)  is  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the  verb  as 
an  intransitive.     To  make  it  agree  with  the  plural  noun,  the  idols  shall  ut- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   II.  35 


terly  pass  away  (E.  V.  marg.,  Low.  Do  W.  Ilk.  Hn.),  or  the  verb  itself  im- 
personal, it  is  past,  gone,  or  all  over  with  the  idols  (Aug.  Ges.  Urn.),  an;  un- 
usual and  harsh  constructions.  It  is  best  to  take  b->bs  not  as  an  adverb  but  a 
noun  meaning  the  whole  and  agreeing  regularly  with  the  verb  (Ros.  Maur. 
Ilg.  Ew.).  The  omission  of  the  article  or  suffix  (^SH  or  o^bs)  may  be  re- 
solved into  the  poetical  usage  of  employing  indefinite  for  definite  expressions 
(Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  $  2.  4)  ;  but  Knobel  accounts  for  it  still  better  by  suggest- 
ing that  the  full  phrase  would  have  been  D^Van  ^?3  (like  vrn  Wo  Judg. 
20:  40),  but  the  second  noun  is  placed  absolutely  at  the  beginning  of  the 
sentence  for  the  sake  of  emphasis — '  the  idols,  the  whole  shall  pass  away,' 
instead  of '  the  whole  of  the  idols  shall  pass  away.' — The  brevity  of  this 
verse,  consisting  of  a  single  clause,  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  highly 
emphatic  and,  as  Hitzig  thinks,  sarcastic.  But  Hendewerk  supposes  what 
was  once  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  to  have  been  accidentally  transferred 
to  that  before  it.  The  eighteenth  verse,  in  his  translation,  stands  as  follows 
— '  Jehovah  alone  is  exalted  in  that  day,  and  the  idols  are  all  gone.'  This 
conjecture,  though  ingenious,  is  entirely  unsupported  by  external  evidence, 
and  certainly  not  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  v.  11,  where  the  same  three 
members  are  combined  as  in  v.  17. 

V.  19.  This  verse  differs  from  the  tenth  only  by  substituting  a  direct 
prediction  for  a  warning  or  exhortation,  and  by  adding  the  design  of  God's 
terrible  appearance.  And  they  (the  idolaters,  or  men  indefinitely)  shall 
enter  into  the  caves  of  the  rocks  and  into  the  holes  of  the  earth,  from  before 
the  terror  of  Jehovah  and  the  glory  of  his  majesty  in  his  arising  (i.  e.  when 
he  arises)  to  terrify  the  earth.  The  first  word  rendered  earth  is  the  same 
that  was  translated  dust  in  v.  10,  but  even  there  it  signifies  the  solid  surface 
rather  than  the  crumbling  particles  which  we  call  dust.  The  most  exact 
translation  would  perhaps  be  ground. — God  is  said  to  arise  when  he  ad- 
dresses himself  to  any  thing,  especially  after  a  season  of  apparent  inaction. — 
The  transitive  meaning  of  the  last  verb,  though  unusual,  is  here  required  by 
the  context,  and  is  perhaps  the  primary  and  proper  one  (see  Gesen.  Thes. 
s.  v.). — The  paronomasia  in  Y*9Si  "prb  has  been  imitated  by  Calvin,  not  in 
his  version  but  his  notes  (ad  terram  terrendam),  and  by  Gesenius  (wenn 
er  sich  erheht  und  die  Erde  bebt). 

V.  20.  This  is  an  amplification  of  v.  18,  explaining  how  the  idols  were 
to  disappear,  viz.  by  being  thrown  away  in  haste,  terror,  shame,  and  des- 
perate contempt,  by  those  who  had  worshipped  them  and  trusted  in  them, 
as  a  means  of  facilitating  their  escape  from  the  avenging  presence  of  Jeho- 
vah. In  that  day  shall  man  cast  his  idols  of  silver  and  his  idols  of  gold 
(here  named  as  the  most  splendid  and  expensive,  in  order  to  make  the  act 
of  throwing  them  away  still  more  significant)  which  they  have  made  (an 


36  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  II. 

indefinite  construction,  equivalent  in  meaning  to  which  have  been  made)  for 
him  to  worship,  to  the  moles  and  to  the  bats  (a  proverbial  expression  for 
contemptuous  rejection). — This  last  clause  has  by  some  been  connected 
immediately  with  what  precedes,  to  bow  down  to  moles  and  bats,  i.  e.  to 
crouch  for  concealment  in  their  dark  and  filthy  hiding-places  (Luzzatto),  or 
to  worship  images  as  blind  as  moles  and  bats  (Jerome),  or  to  worship  moles 
and  bats  themselves  (Sept.  Targ.  Vulg.  ut  adoraret  talpas  et  vespertilio- 
nes),  thus  exchanging  one  form  of  idolatry  for  another  still  more  disgusting 
(Grotius).  But  as  the  context  relates  not  to  the  moral  deterioration  of  idol- 
aters but  to  their  terror  and  despair,  it  is  commonly  agreed  that  this  clause 
is  to  be  construed  with  the  verb  shall  cast,  and  the  words  immediately  pre- 
ceding to  be  read  as  a  parenthesis.  The  idols  made  for  them  to  worship 
they  shall  cast  to  the  moles  and  bats,  not  to  idolaters  still  blinder  than  them- 
selves (Glassius),  but  to  literal  moles  and  bats,  or  the  spots  which  they  fre- 
quent, i.  e.  dark  and  filthy  places  (Knobel,  in  die  Rumpelkammer) . — The 
word  isnb,  as  it  stands  in  all  editions  and  most  manuscripts,  is  the  infinitive 
of  "ten ,  to  dig,  preceded  by  a  preposition  and  followed  by  a  plural  noun 
meaning  holes  (to  dig  holes,  Kimchi)  or  rats  (to  the  digging  of  rats,  Ges. 
s.  v.).  But  as  five  manuscripts  make  these  two  words  one  ;  as  several  in- 
stances of  long  words  erroneously  divided  occur  elsewhere  (1  Chron.  34:  6. 
Jer.  46 :  20.  Lam.  4:3);  and  as  the  next  word  is  also  an  unusually  long 
one  with  the  very  same  particle  prefixed  ;  most  modern  writers  are  agreed 
that  the  true  reading  is  miEnsnb  (Theodotion  aqjctQcpeocox})  a  plural  noun  de- 
rived, by  doubling  two  radicals,  from  ifin ,  to  dig,  and  here  used  as  the 
name  of  an  animal,  probably  the  mole  (Jerome.  Hk.  Hn.  Ew.)  ;  for  although 
moles  are  not  found,  like  bats,  in  dark  recesses,  they  may  be  mentioned  for 
that  very  reason  to  denote  that  the  idolaters  should  cast  away  their  idols, 
not  only  before  setting  out,  but  on  the  way  (Hn.  Ew.).  More  probably,  how- 
ever, moles  and  bats  are  put  together  on  account  of  their  defect  of  sight. 
On  either  supposition,  it  is  needless  to  resort  to  the  rabbinical  tradition  or 
the  Arabic  analogy  for  other  meanings,  such  as  rats  (Ges.  Maur.  De  W.)  or 
sparrows  (Hg.)  or  nocturnal  birds  (Aben  Ezra). — The  sense  of  2"»xn  is 
man  in  a  collective  sense,  not  distributively  a  man  (E.  V.  Low.  Bar.),  the 
article  being  prefixed  to  universal  terms,  in  various  languages,  where  we  omit 
it  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  107.  1). — The  phrase  they  have  made  for  him  is  com- 
monly explained  as  a  sudden  enallage  or  change  of  number,  really  mean- 
ing they  have  made  for  themselves  (Ges.  De  W.  Hk.  Hn.).  Others  suppose 
an  abrupt  transition  from  a  collective  to  a  distributive  construction,  which 
they  have  made  each  one  for  himself  (E.  V.  Ros.).  Others  refer  the  plural 
to  the  artificers  or  idol-makers  (Hg.  Kn.).  Others  cut  the  knot  by  making 
the  verb  singular  (Um.)  or  by  omitting  "ft  (Low.  Bar.),  as  do  one  or  two 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  II.  37 

manuscripts.  The  simplest  construction  is  to  take  the  verb  indefinitely,  and 
to  make  ft  mean  not  for  himself  (Ewald,  die  man  sich  machte)  but  for  him, 
referring  to  man,  the  subject  of  the  sentence.  The  best  translation  of  this 
clause  is  given  in  an  old  French  version  (qu'on  lui  aura  faites). — The  Mine 
version  renders  a  preceding  phrase  the  idols  made  of  his  silver,  and  the 
same  construction  is  adopted  by  Umbreit  (die  Gotzen  seines  Silbers).  But 
the  suffix  really  belongs  to  the  governing  noun  (Hk.),  or  rather  to  the  whole 
complex  phrase  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  119.  3),  and  the  expression  is  perfectly 
equivalent  in  meaning  to  his  silver  idols  which  is  given  in  some  versions 
(Hn.  Ew.). — The  use  of  the  present  tense  in  rendering  this  verse  (Ges.  Hg. 
De  W.  Hk.  Um.)  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  expression  in  that  day  as 
the  old  and  common  future  form  retained  by  Ewald  (vide  supra,  ad  v.  11). 
— On  the  proverbial  sense  of  giving  to  the  bats,  as  applied  to  desolated  fam- 
ilies and  houses,  see  Roberts's  Oriental  Illustrations. 

V.  21.  Continuing  the  sentence,  he  declares  the  end  for  which  they 
should  throw  away  their  idols,  namely,  to  save  themselves,  casting  them  off 
as  worthless  incumbrances  in  order  the  more  quickly  to  take  refuge  in  the 
rocks.  To  go  into  the  clefts  of  the  rocks,  and  into  the  fissures  of  the  cliffs 
(or  crags)  from  before  the  terror  of  Jehovah,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  ma- 
jesty, in  his  arising  to  terrify  the  earth,  or  as  Lowth  more  poetically  ren- 
ders it,  to  strike  the  earth  with  terror. — The  translation  going,  in  going, 
when  they  go  (Vitr.  Ges.  Hk.  Hn.),  as  if  the  acts  were  simultaneous,  rests 
on  a  forced  construction  and  leaves  out  of  view  the  very  end  for  which  they 
are  described  as  throwing  away  their  idols,  to  express  which  the  infinitive, 
must  have  its  proper  meaning  (Hg.  Bs.  Ew.  Um.  Kn.). — The  substitution 
of  flee  (Hg.)  or  creep  (Ges.  Hk.  De  W.)  for  go  or  enter  is  allowable  in  par- 
aphrase but  not  in  strict  translation. — The  English  phrases  ragged  rocks 
(E.  V.)  and  craggy  rocks  (Low.  Bs.)  depart  too  much  from  the  form  of  the 
original,  which  is  a  simple  noun,  as  well  as  from  its  etymological  import, 
which  is  rather  height  than  ruggedness. — The  meaning  of  ''Ipso  is  not  tops 
(Calv.  Cocc.  E.  V.),  which  is  elsewhere  forbidden  by  the  context  (Judg. 
15:  8,  11),  but  fissures  (Sept.  cxiafidg,  Vulg.  cavernas),  answering  to  clefts, 
as  cliffs  to  rocks  in  the  other  clause.  The  whole  phrase  is  rendered  by  a 
compound  word  in  the  German  versions  of  Luther  (Felsklufte),  De  Wette 
(Bergklufte),  and  Hendewerk  (Felsblocke). — The  final  recurrence  of  the 
same  refrain  which  closed  the  eleventh  and  seventeenth  verses,  marks  the 
conclusion  of  the  choral  or  strophical  arrangement  at  this  verse,  the  next  be- 
ginning a  new  context. 

V.  22.  Having  predicted  that  the  people  would  soon  lose  their  confi- 
dence in  idols,  he  now  shows  the  folly  of  transferring  that  confidence  to  hu- 


38  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 

man  patrons,  by  a  general  statement  of  man's  weakness  and  mortality,  ex- 
plained and  amplified  in  the  following  chapter.      Cease  ye  from  man  (i.  e. 
cease  to  trust  him  or  depend  upon  him)  whose  breath  is  in  his  nostrils  (i.  e. 
whose  life  is  transient  and  precarious,  with  obvious  allusion  to  Gen.  2:7), 
for  wherein  is  he  to  be  accounted  of  (or  at  what  rate  is  he  to  be  valued)  ? 
The  interrogation  forcibly  implies  that  man's  protection  cannot  be  relied 
upon. — The  version  is  he  valued  (De  Wette)  seems  inadequate,  the  passive 
participle  having  very  commonly  the  force  not  only  of  the  perfect  but  the 
future  participle  in  Latin   (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  131.  1).     The  reference  of 
these  general  expressions  to  Egypt  (Hk.  Kn.)  or  to  any  other  human  power 
in  particular,  disturbs  the  relation  of  this  verse,  as  a  general  proposition,  to 
the  specific  threatenings  in  the  following  chapter. — Some  of  the  early  Jews 
maliciously  applied  this  verse  to  Christ,  and  their  Christian  opponents,  in- 
stead of  denying  such  a  reference  as  foreign  from  the  context  and  gratuitous, 
admitted  it,  but  took  the  phrase  to  cease  from  in  the  sense  of  letting  alone  or 
ceasing  to  molest  (as  in  2  Chr.  35 :  21),  and  instead  of  irsa,  in  what,  read 
RODS,  a  high  place  (Origen.  Jerome  :  quia  excelsus  reputatus  est  ipse).     This 
strange  and  forced  construction  is  retained  by  some  of  the  earlier  interpre- 
ters of  modern    times    (Oecolampadius.    Lyranus.    Forerius.   Menochius). 
Even  Luther's  version  or  rather  paraphrase  (ihr  wisset  nicht  wie  hoch  er 
geachtet  ist)  seems  to  presuppose  it,  but  may  possibly  be  founded  on  a  mis- 
application of  the  words  in  their  natural  and  proper  sense.     In  the  Septua- 
gint  this  verse  is  wholly  wanting,  and  Vitringa  supposes  the  translators  to 
have  left  it  out,  as  being  an  unwelcome  truth  to  kings  and  princes ;  but 
such  a  motive  must  have  led  to  a  much  more  extensive  expurgation  of  un- 
palatable scriptures.     It  is  found  in  the  other  ancient  versions  and  its  genu- 
ineness has  not  been  disputed. — To  cease  from  is  to  let  alone  ;  in  what  spe- 
cific sense  must  be  determined  by  the  context  (compare  2  Chron.  35 :  21 
with  Prov.  23:  4). — On  the  pleonastic  or  emphatic  form,  cease  for  your- 
selves, see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  131.  3.  e. 


CHAPTER  III. 

This  chapter  continues  the  threatenings  against  Judah  on  account  of 
the  prevailing  iniquities,  with  special  reference  to  female  pride  and  luxury. 

The  Prophet  first  explains  his  exhortation  at  the  close  of  the  last  chap- 
ter, by  showing  that  God  was  about  to  take  away  the  leading  men  of  Judah 
and  to  let  it  fall  into  a  state  of  anarchy,  vs.  1-7.  He  then  shows  that  this 
was  the  effect  of  sin,  particularly  that  of  wicked  rulers,  vs.  8-15.     He 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III.  39 

then  exposes  in  detail   the   pride  and  luxury  of  the  Jewish  women,  and 
threatens   them   not  only  with  the  loss  of  that  in  which  they  now  delight 
but  with  widowhood,  captivity,  and  degradation,  v.  1G — 4:  1. 

The  first  part  opens  with  a  general  prediction  of  the  loss  of  what  they 
trusted  in,  beginning  with  the  necessary  means  of  subsistence,  v.  1 .  We 
have  then  an  enumeration  of  the  public  men  who  were  about  to  be  removed, 
including  civil,  military,  and  religious  functionaries,  with  the  practitioners  of 
certain  arts,  vs.  2,  3.  As  the  effect  of  this  removal,  the  government  falls 
into  incompetent  hands,  v.  4.  This  is  followed  by  insubordination  and  con- 
fusion, v.  5.  At  length,  no  one  is  willing  to  accept  public  office,  the  people 
are  wretched,  and  the  commonwealth  a  ruin,  vs.  6,  7. 

This  ruin  is  declared  to  be  the  consequence  of  sin,  and  the  people  rep- 
resented as  their  own  destroyers,  vs.  8,  9.  God's  judgments,  it  is  true,  are 
not  indiscriminate.  The  innocent  shall  not  perish  with  the  guilty,  but  the 
guilty  must  suffer,  vs.  10,  11.  Incompetent  and  faithless  rulers  must  espe- 
cially be  punished,  who  instead  of  being  the  guardians  are  the  spoilers  of  the 
vineyard,  instead  of  protectors  the  oppressors  of  the  poor,  vs.  12-15. 

As  a  principal  cause  of  these  prevailing  evils,  the  Prophet  now  de- 
nounces female  luxury  and  threatens  it  with  condign  punishment,  privation 
and  disgrace,  vs.  16,  17.  This  general  denunciation  is  then  amplified  at 
great  length,  in  a  detailed  enumeration  of  the  ornaments  which  were  about 
to  be  taken  from  them  and  succeeded  by  the  badges  of  captivity  and  mourn- 
ing, vs.  18-24.  The  agency  to  be  employed  in  this  retribution  is  a  disas- 
trous war.  by  which  the  men  are  to  be  swept  off  and  the  country  left  deso- 
late, vs.  25,  26.  The  extent  of  this  calamity  is  represented  by  a  lively  ex- 
hibition of  the  disproportion  between  the  male  survivors  and  the  other  sex, 
suggesting  at  the  same  time  the  forlorn  condition  of  the  widows  of  the  slain, 
chap.  4:1. 

V.  1.  This  verse  assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  exhortation  in  the  one  pre- 
ceding, that  God  was  about  to  take  away  from  the  people  every  ground  of 
reliance,  natural  and  moral.  Cease  ye  from  man,  i.  e.  cease  to  trust  in  any 
human  protection,  for  behold  (implying  a  proximate  futurity)  the  Lord 
(God  considered  as  a  sovereign)  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (as  self-existent  and 
eternal,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  God  of  revelation  and  the  God  of  his 
people)  is  taking  away  (or  about  to  take  away)  from  Jerusalem  and  from 
Judah  (not  only  from  the  capital  but  from  the  whole  kingdom)  the  stay  and 
the  staff  (i.  e.  all  kinds  of  support,  and  first  of  all)  the  whole  stay  of  bread 
and  the  whole  stay  of  water  (the  natural  and  necessary  means  of  subsist- 
ence). The  terms  are  applicable  either  to  a  general  famine  produced  by 
natural  causes,  or  to  a  scarcity  arising  from  invasion  or  blockade,  such  as 
actually  took   place  when  Judah  was  overrun  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings 


40  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 

25:  4.  Jer.  52:  6.  38:  9.  Lam.  4:  4). — Instead  of  the  whole  stay,  prose 
usage  would  require  every  stay,  the  form  adopted  by  Gesenius  and  the  later 
Germans.  But  the  other  construction  is  sustained  by  the  analogy  of  the 
whole  head  and  the  whole  heart  ch.  1  :  5,  and  by  the  impossibility  of  express- 
ing this  idea  otherwise  without  circumlocution,  as  the  addition  of  another 
noun  excludes  the  article. — The  old  version  stay  and  staff  is  an  approxima- 
tion to  the  form  of  the  original,  in  which  a  masculine  and  feminine  form  of 
the  same  noun  are  combined,  by  an  idiom  common  in  Arabic  and  not  un- 
known in  Hebrew  (Nah.  2 :  13),  to  denote  universality,  or  rather  all  kinds 
of  the  object  named.  This  form  of  expression  is  retained  in  the  Greek  ver- 
sions (Sept.  iofvopta  xai  la^vovoav.  Aqu.  tQEiGfia  xcu  epetGftov*  Symm.  gti- 
Qiyfta  xai  arijQiyfiov),  and  the  Jewish-Spanish  (sustentador  y  sustentadora). 
Others  imitate  it  merely  by  combining  synonymes  alike  in  form  (Calv.  vigo- 
rem  et  vim.  Vitr.  fulcimentum  et  fulturam.  Hitz.  Stiitze  und  Stutzpunkt. 
Ew.  Stab  und  Stiitze).  Others  simply  give  the  sense  by  reading  every  stay 
(Ges.),  all  stays  of  every  kind  (J.  D.  Mich.),  one  stay  after  another  (Hk.), 
etc. — The  last  clause  is  rejected  as  a  gloss  by  Gesenius  in  his  commentary, 
on  the  ground  that  its  explanation  of  the  first  clause  as  denoting  food  and 
drink  is  inconsistent  with  the  subsequent  context  which  explains  it  to  mean 
public  men.  This  objection  is  withdrawn  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Ger- 
man version,  but  renewed  by  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  with  the  addition  of  ano- 
ther, viz.  that  water  is  not  a  stay  or  staff  of  life.  The  last  is  frivolous  and 
the  other  groundless,  as  the  last  clause  is  not  an  explanation  of  the  first,  but 
begins  a  specification  of  particulars  included  in  it.  The  stays  of  which  they 
were  to  be  deprived  were  first  the  stay  of  food,  v.  1,  and  then  the  stay  of 
government,  vs.  2,  3. 

V.  2.  Next  to  the  necessary  means  of  subsistence,  the  Prophet  enume- 
rates the  great  men  of  the  commonwealth,  vs.  2,  3.  The  first  clause  has 
reference  to  military  strength,  the  second  to  civil  and  religious  dignities.  In 
the  second  clause  there  is  an  inverse  parallelism,  the  first  and  fourth  terms 
denoting  civil  officers,  the  second  and  third  religious  ones.  The  omission  of 
the  article  before  the  nouns,  though  not  uncommon  in  poetry,  adds  much  to 
the  rapidity  and  life  of  the  description.  Hero  and  warrior,  judge  and  'pro- 
phet, and  divine  and  elder. — That  the  first  is  not  a  generic  term  including 
all  that  follow  (the  great  men,  viz.  the  warriors,  etc.)  is  clear  from  the  par- 
allelism, the  terms  being  arranged  in  pairs  as  often  elsewhere  (ch.  11:2. 
19:  3,  6-9.  22:  12,  13.  42:  19).— The  idea  here  expressed  by  Tfca  is 
not  simply  that  of  personal  strength  and  prowess  (Sept.  ylyavTu  xal  ig^vovjo), 
but  the  higher  one  of  military  eminence  or  heroism  (J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  Hn. 
etc.). — The  literal  version  of  the  next  phrase,  man  of  war,  has  acquired  a 
different  sense  in  modern  English.     It  may  here  denote  either  a  warrior  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   III.  41 

high  rank,  as  synonymous  with  liaa  (Vitr.  militia  clarum)  or  one  of  ordinary 
rank,  as  distinguished  from  it  (Cocc.  ducem  et  mihtem.  Kn.  Oberste  und 
Gemeine).  Compare  2  Sam.  23  :  8. — Judge  may  either  be  taken  in  its  re- 
stricted modem  sense  (Ilk.)  or  in  the  wider  one  of  magistrate  or  ruler. — To 
avoid  the  supposed  incongruity  of  coupling  the  prophet  and  diviner  together, 
some  take  tra  in  the  bad  sense  of  a  false  or  an  unfaithful  prophet  (J.  D. 
Mich.  Ges.  Hg.)  ;  others  take  cop  in  the  good  sense  of  a  scribe  (Targ.),  a 
prudent  man  (E.  V.),  or  a  sagacious  prognosticator  or  adviser  (Sept.  Grot. 
Bar.)  ;  while  Hendewerk  refers  both  words  to  the  prophet,  making  the  first 
denote  his  office  as  a  preacher  and  the  second  as  a  foreteller ;  all  which 
is  arbitrary,  contrary  to  usage,  and  entirely  superfluous.  The  people  are 
threatened  with  the  loss  of  all  their  stays,  good  or  bad,  true  or  false.  Vera 
et  falsa  a  Judaeis  pariter  auferentur  (Jerome). — The  last  word  in  the  verse 
is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  primary  and  proper  sense  of  old  man  (Vulg.  senem), 
much  less  in  the  factitious  one  of  sage  (Low.)  or  wise  man  (Bs.),  since  all 
the  foregoing  terms  are  titles  denoting  rank  and  office,  but  in  its  secondary 
sense  of  elder  (Sept.  TrQea^viFQov.  Lu.  Aeltesten)  or  hereditary  chief,  and  as 
such,  a  magistrate  under  the  patriarchal  system.  It  is  here  equivalent  or 
parallel  to  judge,  the  one  term  denoting  the  functions  of  the  office,  the  other 
the  right  by  which  it  was  held. — The  change  of  the  singulars  in  this  verse 
for  plurals  (Luth.  J.  D.  Mich.),  though  it  does  not  affect  the  sense,  weakens 
its  expression. 

V.  3.  To  persons  of  official  rank  and  influence,  the  Prophet  adds,  in 
order  to  complete  his  catalogue,  practitioners  of  those  arts  upon  which  the 
people  set  most  value.  As  the  prophet  and  diviner  stand  together  in  v.  2, 
so  mechanical  and  magical  arts  are  put  together  here.  The  first  clause  sim- 
ply finishes  the  list  of  public  functionaries  which  had  been  begun  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  The  chief  of  fifty,  and  the  favourite,  and  the  counsellor, 
and  the  slcilful  artificer,  and  the  expert  enchanter. — The  first  title  is  derived 
from  the  decimal  arrangement  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness  for  judicial 
purposes  (Exod.  18 :  25,  26),  but  is  afterwards  used  only  as  a  military  title. 
Hitzig  and  Knobel  understand  it  here  as  denoting  an  officer  of  low  rank,  in 
opposition  to  warrior  in  the  verse  preceding. — The  next  phrase  literally  sig- 
nifies lifted  up  in  countenance  (Vulg.  honorabilem  vultu),  which  is  com- 
monly understood  as  a  description  of  an  eminent  or  honourable  person. 
But  as  the  same  words  are  employed  to  signify  respect  of  persons  or  judicial 
partiality,  the  phrase  may  here  denote  one  highly  favoured  by  a  sovereign, 
a  royal  favourite  (2  Kings  5:  1.  Lev.  9:  15.  Deut.  10:  17.  Job  13:  10. 
Mai.  2:  9),  or  respected,  reverenced  by  the  people  (Lam.  4 :  16.  Deut. 
18:  50).  Luther  translates  it  as  a  plural  or  collective  by  respectable  peo- 
ple (ehrliche  Leute). — The  counsellor  here  meant  is  not  a  private  or  profes- 


42 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 


sional  adviser,  but  a  public  counsellor  or  minister  of  state. — can  is  here  used 
in  what  seems  to  be  its  primary  sense  of  skilful,  with  respect  to  art  (com- 
pare Goqog  in  Passow's  Greek  Lexicon). — The  explanation  of  tn^hm  as  de- 
noting occult  arts  (Cler.  Ges.  Hg.  Hn.  Ewald,  Hexenmeister) ,  though  coun- 
tenanced by  Chaldee  and  Syriac  analogies,  has  no  Hebrew  usage  to  sup- 
port it,  and  the  expression  of  the  same  idea  in  the  other  clause  is  rather  a 
reason  for  applying  this  to  the  mechanical  arts,  as  is  done  by  the  Septuagint 
(aocpbr  cloy  u  em  ova),  Luther  (weise  Werkleute),  Vitringa  (mechanicarum  ar- 
tium  peritum),  Knobel,  and  others.  Umbreit  seems  to  apply  the  term  spe- 
cially to  the  manufacture  of  idols,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  does  to  that  of  arms 
(gute  Waffenschmiede).  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  may  have  been  led  to  reject 
this  old  interpretation  by  a  desire  to  evade  the  remarkable  coincidence  be- 
tween this  prophecy  and  the  fact  recorded  in  2  Kings  24 :  14,  16. — The 
last  word  in  the  verse  is  taken  strictly,  as  denoting  a  '  whisper '  or  the  act  of 
whispering,  by  Aquila  (gvvezov  m&vQi6fi<f),  Cocceius  (prudentem  susurro- 
rum),  and  Hitzig  (kundigen  des  Geflusters)  ;  but  in  its  secondary  sense  of 
incantation,  with  allusion  to  the  mutterings  and  whisperings  which  formed  a 
part  of  magical  ceremonies,  by  Symmachus  {o^itlia  fjvajixrj),  the  Vulgate 
(eloquii  mystici),  and  most  modern  writers.  According  to  J.  D.  Michaelis 
and  Gesenius,  it  specially  denotes  the  charming  of  serpents.  The  sense  of 
eloquent  orator  (Lu.  Calv.  Jun.  E.  V.  Vitr.  Low.)  seems  altogether  arbi- 
trary. The  analogous  phrase  TO*  yi=5  (1  Sam.  16:  18),  to  which  Rosen- 
muller  refers,  is  itself  of  doubtful  import  and  proves  nothing. 

V.  4.  The  natural  consequence  of  the  removal  of  the  leading  men  must 
be  the  rise  of  incompetent  successors,  persons  without  capacity,  experience, 
or  principle,  a  change  which  is  here  ascribed  to  God's  retributive  justice. 
And  I  will  give  children  to  be  their  rulers,  and  childish  things  shall  govern 
them.  Some  apply  this,  in  a  strict  sense,  to  the  weak  and  wicked  reign  of 
Ahaz  (Ew.  Hg.  Hk.  Kn.),  others  in  a  wider  sense  to  the  series  of  weak 
kings  after  Isaiah  (Gro.  Low.).  But  there  is  no  need  of  restricting  it  to 
kings  at  all,  as  ^D  denotes  a  ruler  in  general,  and  in  v.  3  is  applied  to  rulers 
of  inferior  rank.  The  most  probable  opinion  is  that  the  incompetent  rulers 
are  called  boys  or  children  not  in  respect  to  age  but  character,  '  non  ratione 
aetatis  sed  imprudentiae  et  ineptitudinis '  (J.  H.  Mich.).  Calvin,  Cocceius, 
Lowth,  and  Gesenius  take  s^Vrw  as  a  simple  equivalent  to="?:.5,and  J.  D. 
Michaelis  translates  it  sucklings.  Hitzig  makes  it  qualify  the  verb  instead  of 
agreeing  with  it  as  its  subject.  *  They  (the  children)  shall  rule  over  them 
with  arbitrary  cruelty.'  Hendewerk  and  Knobel  give  the  same  meaning 
to  the  noun,  but  retain  the  usual  construction.  *  And  tyranny  shall  rule 
over  them.'  Most  probably,  however,  c^rcn  is  an  abstract  term  used  for 
the  concrete, puerilities  or  childishnesses  for  childish  persons,  or  still  more  con- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III.  43 

temptuously,  childish  things  (Lu.  Ew.  Um.).  The  Targum  has  weaklings 
(ffftDbn),  the  Scptuagint  \\inu.Uia.i,  the  Vulgate  cffoeminati,  Junius  and  Tre- 
mellius  facinorosi. 

V.  5.  As   the  preceding  verse  describes  bad  government,  so  this  de- 
scribes anarchy,  the  suspension  of  all  government,  and  a  consequent  disorder 
in  the  relations  of  society.,  betraying  itself  in  mutual  violence,  and  in  the  dis- 
regard of  natural  and  artificial  claims  to  deference.     And  the  people  shall 
act  tyrannically,  man  against  man,  and  man  against  his  fellow.      They  shall 
be  insolent,  the  youth  to  the  old  man,  and  the  mean  man  to  the  noble.     The 
passive  construction,  the  people  shall  be  oppressed  (E.  V.  Low.  Bs.),  does 
not  agree  so  well  with  the  usage  of  the  preposition  following  as  the  reflexive 
one  now  commonly  adopted.     The  insertion  of  another  verb  (man  striving 
against  man,  Bar.)  is  wholly  unnecessary.     The  second  verb  is  commonly 
explained   to  mean   the  insolence  or  arrogance  of  upstarts  to  their  betters 
(Calv.  insolescet.  Fr.  Vs.  se  portera  arrogamment)  ;  but  the  best  lexicogra- 
phers give  it  the  stronger  sense  of  acting  ferociously  (Cocc.  Ges.  Winer. 
Furst),  or,  to  combine  both  ideas,  with  ferocious  insolence.     (Hitzig,  stiir- 
men.    Gesenius,lossturmen.     Hendewerk,  wiithet.    Henderson,  outrage.) — 
The  passive  participles  in  the  last  clause  properly  signify  despised  and  hon- 
oured, i.  e.  once  despised,  once  honoured  (Cler.  qui  antea  spretus  erat)  ;  or, 
according  to  the   common   idiomatic  usage  of  passive  participles,  to  be  de- 
spised, to  be  honoured,  not  so  much  with  reference  to  moral  character  as  to 
rank  and  position  in  society.     The  restriction  of  the  first  clause  to  the  rigo- 
rous exaction   of  debts  (Clericus)  is  inconsistent  with  the  context  and  the 
parallelism.     On  contempt  of  old  age,  as  a  sign  of  barbarism,  see  Lam. 
4  :  16,  Deut.  28:  50.     Eight  manuscripts  and  fifteen  editions  read  c:.:  for 
toss,  but  all  the  ancient  versions  presuppose  the  common  reading. 

V.  6.  Having  predicted  the  removal  of  those  qualified  to  govern,  the 
rise  of  incompetent  successors,  and  a  consequent  insubordination  and  confu- 
sion, the  Prophet  now  describes  this  last  as  having  reached  such  a  height 
that  no  one  is  willing  to  hold  office,  or,  as  Matthew  Henry  says,  "  the  gov- 
ernment goes  a  begging."  This  verse,  notwithstanding  its  length,  seems  to 
contain  only  the  protasis  or  conditional  clause  of  the  sentence,  in  which  the 
commonwealth  is  represented  as  a  ruin,  and  the  task  of  managing  it  pressed 
upon  one  living  in  retirement,  on  the  ground  that  he  still  possesses  decent 
raiment,  a  lively  picture  both  of  general  anarchy  and  general  wretchedness. 
When  a  man  shall  take  hold  of  his  brother  (i.  e.  one  man  of  another)  hi  his 
father's  house  (at  home  in  a  private  station,  saying)  thou  hast  raiment,  a  ruler 
shalt  thou  be  to  us,  and  this  ruin  (shall  be)  under  thy  hand  (i.  e.  under  thy 
power,  control,  and  management).     It  is  equally  consistent  with  the  syntax 


44 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  III. 


and  the  usage  of  the  words  to  understand  the  man  as  addressing  his  brother, 
in  the  proper  sense,  or  in  that  of  a  near  kinsman,  of  or  belonging  to  the 
house  of  his  (the  speaker's)  father,  i.  e.  one  of  the  same  family  ( Vulg.  domes- 
ticum  patris  sui.  J.  H.  Mich,  cognatum.  Hendew.  Einen  von  den  seinen). 
But  the  offer  would  then  seem  to  be  simply  that  of  headship  or  chieftain- 
ship over  a  family  or  house,  whereas   a  wider  meaning  is  required  by  the 
connexion.     For  raiment  Henderson  reads  an  abundant  wardrobe,  and  ex- 
plains  the  phrase  as  meaning  thou  art  rich,  because  clothing  forms  a  large 
part  of  oriental  wealth,  and  the  same  explanation   is   given  in  substance 
by  Clericus,  Hendewerk,  Barnes,  and  Umbreit.     But   Vitringa,  Gesenius, 
Rosenmuller,  Knobel   and  others,  understand  the  words  more  probably  as 
meaning  c  thou  hast  still  a  garment,'  whereas  we  have  none,  implying  gene- 
ral distress  as  well  as  anarchy.     Vitringa  and  Lowth  make  nzb  a  verb,  as  it 
is  elsewhere,  meaning  go  or  come,  as  a  particle  of  exhortation  (vide  supra, 
ch.  2:3),  and  connect  nb^ab  with  what  precedes,  but  in  different  ways. 
Vitringa's  construction  is  that  a  man  shall  lay  hold  of  his  brother,  in  whose 
paternal  house  there  is  raiment,  saying  come  on  (agedum),  etc.     Lowth's 
that  a  man  shall  lay  hold  of  his  brother  by  the  garment,  saying  come,  etc. 
All  other  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  tt&  is  an  unusual  mode  of  writing 
r\h  (see  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  35). — The  ^3  at  the  beginning  has  been  variously 
rendered  for,  because  (Sept.  Targ.  Vulg.  Pesh.),   therefore  (Lowth),  if 
(Junius),  then  if  (Ros.),  then  (Lu.  Ges.  Bs.  Kn.).     Henderson  uses  the 
periphrasis  should  any  one,  etc.     Hitzig  and  Ewald  agree  with  Calvin, 
Vitringa,  Clericus,  and  the  English  Bible  in  rendering  i&when,  and  regard- 
ing the  two  verses  as  one  continuous  sentence. — The  word  saying  in  the  first 
clause  is  inserted  by  two  manuscripts,  and  supplied  by  most  versions  ancient 
and  modern. — Thirty-five  manuscripts  and  two  editions  read  SfJJ  in  the 
plural. 

V.  7.  This  verse  contains  the  refusal  of  the  invitation  given  in  the  one 
preceding.  In  that  day  he  shall  lift  up  (his  voice  in  reply)  saying  I  will 
not  be  a  healer,  and  in  my  house  there  is  no  bread,  and  there  is  no  clothing  ; 
ye  shall  not  make  me  a  ruler  of  the  people.  In  that  day  may  either  mean 
at  once,  without  deliberation,  or  continue  the  narrative  without  special  em- 
phasis. Some  supply  hand  after  lift  up,  as  a  gesture  of  swearing,  or  the 
name  of  God  as  in  the  third  commandment,  and  understand  the  phrase  to 
mean  that  he  shall  swear  (Saad.  Lu.  Calv.  E.  V.,  J.  D.  Mich.).  But  the 
great  majority  of  writers  supply  voice,  some  in  the  specific  sense  of  answer- 
ing (Sept.  Vulg.  Targ.  Pesh.  Cler.)  or  in  the  simple  sense  of  uttering 
(Cocc.  Ges.  De  W.  Ew.),  but  others  with  more  probability  in  that  of  speak- 
ing with  a  loud  voice  (Vitr.  Ros.),  or  distinctly  and  with  emphasis,  he  shall 
protest  (Hn.)  or  openly  declare   (Low.).     The  Vulgate,  Luther,  and  Ge~ 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   III.  IS 

senius  have  I  am  not  a  healer,  but  if  that  were  the  sense  the  verb  would 
probably  be  suppressed.  The  meaning  of  the  words  seems  to  be  either  / 
cannot,  as  a  confession  of  unfitness  (Targ.  Ros.  De  W.  Hk.  Urn.),  or  I  will 
not,  as  an  expression  of  invincible  aversion  (Calv.  Cocc.  Cler.  E.  V.  Low. 
Hn.  Kn.). — The  Septtiagint  and  Clericus  take  OaVi  in  the  sense  of  prince 
or  prefect.  Cocceius  translates  it  literally  binding,  Ewald  binder.  Saadias 
makes  it  mean  one  who  binds  his  head  with  a  diadem  ;  Montanus  an  execu- 
tioner, like  the  Latin  lictor.  The  true  sense  of  healer  is  given  by  the  Vul- 
gate (inedicus),  Calvin  (curator),  Luther  (Artzt),  and  most  of  the  later  ver- 
sions.— There  is  no  need  of  readings/or  in  my  house  (Calv.  Cler.  Hn.  Ew. 
Kn.),  as  the  words  do  not  directly  give  a  reason  for  refusing,  but  simply  deny 
the  fact  alleged  in  the  request.  Clericus,  Lowth,  and  Henderson  carry  out 
their  interpretation  of  the  previous  verse  by  supposing  the  excuse  here  given 
to  be  that  he  was  not  rich  enough  to  clothe  and  feast  the  people  as  oriental 
chiefs  are  expected  to  do.  But  the  whole  connexion  seems  to  show  that  it 
is  a  profession  of  great  poverty,  which,  if  true,  shows  more  clearly  the  condi- 
tion of  the  people,  and  if  false,  the  general  aversion  to  office.  The  last  clause 
does  not  simply  mean  do  not  make  me,  but  you  must  not,  or  you  shall  not 
make  me  a  ruler.  Gesenius  and  all  the  later  Germans  except  Ewald  sub- 
stitute the  descriptive  present  for  the  future  in  this  verse. 

V.  8.  The  Prophet  here  explains  his  use  of  the  word  ruin  in  reference 
to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  by  declaring  that  it  had  in  fact  destroyed 
itself  by  the  offence  which  its  iniquities  had  given  to  the  holiness  of  God, 
here  compared  to  the  sensitiveness  of  the  human  eye.  Do  not  wonder  at  its 
being  called  a  ruin,ybr  Jerusalem  totters  and  Judah  falls  (or  Jerusalem  is  tot- 
tering and  Judah  falling),  because  their  tongue  and  their  doings  (words  and 
deeds  being  put  for  the  whole  conduct)  are  against  Jehovah  (strictly  to  or 
towards,  but  in  this  connexion  necessarily  implying  opposition  and  hostility), 
to  resist  (i.  e.  so  as  to  resist,  implying  both  the  purpose  and  effect  his 
holy  eyes  (and  thereby  to  offend  them).  The  Peshito  seems  to  take  these  as 
the  words  of  the  man  refusing  to  govern  ;  but  they  are  really  those  of  the 
Prophet  explaining  his  refusal  or  rather  one  of  the  expressions  used  in  mak- 
ing the  offer,  as  ribtis  clearly  involves  an  allusion  to  nb^aia  one  of  its  deriva- 
tives. The  ^3  is  therefore  not  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  yea  (Um.), 
or  surely  (Calv.),  but  in  its  proper  sense  of  for,  because  (Sept.  Vulg.  etc.). 
Here  as  in  ch.l  :  16,D^b;S>^  is  variously  rendered  adinventiones  (Vulg.),  stu- 
dia  (Calv.),  conata  (Mont.),  but  the  only  meaning  justified  by  etymology  is 
that  of  actions.  Cocceius,  who  refers  the  whole  prophecy  to  the  times  of 
the  New  Testament,  understands  by  their  resisting  God's  holy  eyes  the  op- 
position of  the  Jews  to  the  Son  of  God  when  personally  present.  Tottur 
and  fall  are  supposed  by  some  to  be  in  antithesis,  contrasting  the  calamities 


46  SA1AH,  CHAP.  III. 

of  Jerusalem  with  the  worse  calamities  of  Judah  (Knobel),  or  the  partial 
downfall  of  the  kingdom  under  Ahaz,  with  its  total  downfal  under  Zedekiah 
(Vitringa)  ;  but  they  are  more  probably  poetical  equivalents,  asserting  the 
same  fact,  that  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  though  peculiarly  the  Lord's,  were 
nevertheless  to  fall  and  be  destroyed  for  their  iniquities. — The  present  form 
is  adopted  here,  not  only  by  the  modern  writers,  but  by  the  Septuagint, 
Vulgate,  and  Luther. — The  emendation  of  the  text  by  changing  rjs  to  "jjs 
(Low.)  or  *?*  (J.  D.  Mich.),  is  needless  and  without  authority. — For  the 
orthography  of  *»j  see  Ewald's  Heb.  Gr.  §  30. 

V%  9.  As  they  make  no  secret  of  their  depravity,  and  as  sin  and  suffer- 
ing are  inseparably  connected,  they  must  bear  the  blame  of  their  own  de- 
struction. The  expression  of  their  countenances  testifies  against  them,  and 
their  sin,  like  Sodom,  they  disclose,  they  hide  it  not.  Woe  unto  their  soul, 
for  they  have  done  evil  to  themselves. — The  first  clause  is  applied  to  respect 
of  persons  or  judicial  partiality,  by  the  Targum  (tfS'mi),  Clericus  (habita 
hominum  ratio),  Hitzig  (ihr  Ansehn  der  Person),  and  Gesenius  in  his  The- 
saurus. This  construction  is  favoured  by  the  usage  of  the  phrase  d^sd  ^sn 
(Deut.  1 :  17.  16:  19.  Prov.  24:  23.  28:  21)  ;  but  the  context  seems  to 
show  that  the  Prophet  has  reference  to  general  character  and  not  to  a  spe- 
cific sin,  while  the  parallel  expressions  in  this  verse  make  it  almost  certain 
that  the  phrase  relates  to  the  expression  of  the  countenance.  Some  explain 
it  accordingly  of  a  particular  expression,  such  as  shame  (Sept.),  impudence 
(Vulg.),  obduracy  (Jun.),  steadfastness  (Lowth),  confusion  (Ges.),  insensi- 
bility (Ew.).  But  the  various  and  even  contradictory  senses  thus  put  upon 
the  word  may  serve  to  show  that  it  is  more  correctly  understood,  as  denot- 
ing the  expression  of  the  countenance  generally,  by  Calvin  (probatio), 
Cocceius  (adspectus),  Gussetius  (quod  dant  cognoscendum),  the  English 
Version  (show),  De  Wette  (Ausdruck),  and  other  recent  writers.  The 
sense  is  not  that  their  looks  betray  them,  but  that  they  make  no  effort  at 
concealment,  as  appears  from  the  reference  to  Sodom.  Quod  unum  habe- 
bant  in  peccatis  bonum  perdunt,  peccandi  verecundiam  (Seneca). — The 
expression  of  the  same  idea  first  in  a  positive  and  then  in  a  negative  form  is 
not  uncommon  in  Scripture,  and  is  a  natural  if  not  an  English  idiom.  Mad- 
ame d'Arblay,  in  her  Memoirs  of  Dr.  Burney,  speaks  of  Omiah,  the  Tahi- 
tian  brought  home  by  Captain  Cook,  as  "  uttering  first  affirmatively  and 
then  negatively  all  the  little  sentences  that  he  attempted  to  pronounce." 
For  examples  involving  this  same  verb  "in?,  see  Josh.  7  :  19.  1  Sam.  3  :  17, 
18.  The  explanation  of  &&%  as  meaning  recompense,  reward  (Vulg.  Cler. 
E.  V.  Um.),  is  rejected  by  most  of  the  modern  writers,  who  make  it  corres- 
pond very  nearly  to  the  English  treat,  in  the  sense  of  doing  either  good  or 
evil.     '  They  have  treated  themselves  ill,  or  done  evil  to  themselves '  (Cocc. 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  III.  47 

sibimet  ipsis  male  faciunt.  Ewald :  sie  thaten  sich  buses).  Hengstenber^ 
maintains  (Comm.  on  Psalm  7 :  5)  that  the  verb  means  properly  to  do 
good,  and  is  used  in  a  bad  sense  only  by  a  kind  of  irony.  The  phrase  to 
their  soul  may  be  understood  strictly  (Calv.  E.  V.  Hg.  De  W.)  or  as  mean- 
ing to  their  life  (Cler.  Ges.)  ;  but  the  singular  form  of  the  noun  seems  to 
imply  that  it  is  used  as  a  periphrasis  for  the  reflexive  pronoun  to  themselves. 
David  Kimchi  says  that  his  father  derived  --2-  from  -zr,  to  be  $a'na,  mak- 
ing the  n  radical  ;  but  the  derivation  from  i?3  is  now  universally  adopted. 

V.  10.  The  righteous  are  encouraged  by  the  assurance  that  the  judg- 
ments of  God  shall  not  be  indiscriminate.  Say  ye  of  the  righteous  that  it 
shall  be  well,  for  the  fruits  of  their  doings  they  shall  eat.  The  object  of 
address  seems  to  be  not  the  prophets  or  ministers  of  God,  but  the  people  at 
large  or  men  indefinitely.  The  concise  and  elliptical  first  clause  may  be 
variously  construed — '  Say,  it  is  right  (or  righteous)  that  (they  should  eat) 
good,  that  they  should  eat  the  fruit  of  their  doings.' — '  Say,  it  is  right  (or 
God  is  righteous),  for  it  is  good  that  they  should  eat,'  etc. — '  Say  (what  is) 
right,'  i.  e.  pronounce  just  judgment.  The  verb  is  made  to  govern  p"1"* 
directly  by  Vitringa  (justum  praedicate  beatum),  Lowth  (pronounce  ye  a 
blessing  on  the  righteous),  Gesenius  (preiset  den  Gerechten).  The  prepo- 
sition to  is  supplied  by  the  Targum,  Peshito,  Vulgate  (dicite  justo),  English 
Version,  Barnes,  and  Henderson.  The  construction  most  agreeable  to 
usage  is  that  given  by  Luther,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  De  Wette,  Hendewerk, 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel — '  Say  ye  of  the  righteous  (or  concerning  him) 
that,'  etc.  One  manuscript  reads  briar  in  the  singular,  but  the  plural  form 
agrees  with  p"1^  as  a  collective. 

V.  11.  This  is  the  converse  of  the  foregoing  proposition,  a  threatening 
corresponding  to  the  promise.  Woe  unto  the  wicked,  (it  shall  be)  ill  (with 
him),  for  the  thing  done  by  his  hands  shall  be  done  to  him. — Calvin  and 
Ewald  separate  sranb  from  "»1H  and  connect  it  with  s^,  '  woe  (or  alas)  !  to 
the  wicked  it  is  (or  shall  be)  ill,'  a  construction  favoured  by  the  Masoretic 
accents.  Kimchi  makes  s^  agree  with  soi  in  the  sense  of  an  evil  wicked 
man,  i.  e.  one  who  is  wicked  both  towards  God  and  man.  (See  Gill  ad  loc.) 
This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Luther,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Clericus,  and 
J.  H.  Michaelis.  De  Wette,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel  give  the  same  con- 
struction, but  take  sn  in  the  sense  of  wretched,  '  woe  to  the  wicked,  the 
unhappy.'  But  Si  seems  evidently  parallel  to  rivj  in  v.  10,  and  cannot 
therefore  be  a  mere  epithet.  Umbreit  follows  the  Vulgate,  Clericus,  etc., 
in  giving  to  bi^a  the  sense  of  recompense.  Luther  and  Henderson  explain 
it  to  mean  merit  or  desert ;  Calvin,  Lowth,  and  Gesenius,  more  correctly 
work. 


48  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 


V.  12.  The  Prophet  now  recurs  to  the  evil  of  unworthy  and  incapable 
rulers,  and  expresses,  by  an  exclamation,  wonder  and  concern  at  the  result. 
My  people  !  their  oppressors  are  childish  and  women  rule  over  them.  My 
people !  thy  leaders  are  seducers,  and  the  way  of  thy  paths  (the  way  where 
thy  path  lies)  they  swallow  up  (cause  to  disappear,  destroy). — ies  is  usually 
construed  in  the  first  clause  as  an  absolute  nominative ;  but  by  making  it  (as 
Umbreit  does)  an  exclamation,  the  parallelism  becomes  more  exact. — Gese- 
nius  and  Hitzig  explain  I'MBW  as  a  pluralis  majestaticus  referring  to  Ahaz, 
which  is  needless  and  arbitrary.  W»5o  is  in  the  singular  because  it  is  used 
adjectively,  the  predicate  being  often  in  the  singular  when  the  subject  is 
plural.  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  144. 6.  c.)  Instead  of  thy  guides  Luther  read  sthy 
comforters ;  others,  those  ivho  call  thee  happy,  which  is  one  of  the  meanings 
of  the  Hebrew  word,  and  was  perhaps  designed  to  be  suggested  here,  but 
not  directly  as  the  primary  idea.  The  paronomasia  introduced  into  the  last 
clause  by  Cocceius  (qui  ducunt  te  seducunt  te),  the  Dutch  Version  (die 
u  leyden  verleyden  u),  and  Gesenius  (deine  Fiihrer  verfiihren  dich),  is  not 
found  in  the  original. 

V.  13.  Though  human  governments  might  be  overthrown,  God  still 
remained  a  sovereign  and  a  judge,  and  is  here  represented  as  appearing, 
coming  forward,  or  assuming  his  position,  not  only  as  a  judge  but  as  an  ad- 
vocate, or  rather  an  accuser,  in  both  which  characters  he  acts  at  once, 
implying  that  he  who  brings  this  charge  against  his  people  has  at  the  same 
time  power  to  condemn.  Jehovah  standeth  up  to  plead,  and  is  standing  to 
judge  the  nations.  The  first  verb  properly  denotes  a  reflexive  act,  viz.  that 
of  placing  or  presenting  himself.  The  participle  is  used  to  represent  the 
scene  as  actually  passing.  The  meaning  of  3*n  is  to  plead  or  conduct  a 
cause  for  another  or  one's  self. — Some  understand  the  last  clause  to  mean 
that  the  judge  is  still  standing,  that  he  has  not  yet  taken  his  place  upon  the 
judgment-seat.  According  to  Clericus,  it  represents  the  case  as  so  clear 
that  the  judge  decides  it  standing,  without  sitting  down  to  hear  argument  or 
evidence.  But  these  are  needless  and  unnatural  refinements. — Vitringa 
makes  n"^  and  "p*t  synonymous,  which  is  contrary  to  usage. — Nations  here 
as  often  elsewhere  means  the  tribes  of  Israel.  See  Gen.  49 :  10.  Deut.  32 : 
8.  33:  3,  19.  1  Kings  22:  28.  Mich.  1 :  2.  There  is  no  need  therefore 
of  reading  ia?  for  &*»?,  as  Lowth  does. 

V.  14.  This  verse  describes  the  parties  more  distinctly  and  begins  the 
accusation.  Jehovah  will  enter  into  judgment  (engage  in  litigation,  both  as 
a  party  and  a  judge)  with  the  elders  of  his  people  (the  heads  of  houses, 
families  and  tribes)  and  the  chiefs  therof  (the  hereditary  chiefs  of  Israel, 
here  and  elsewhere  treated  as  responsible  representatives  of  the  people). 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IH.  49 

And  ye  (even  ye)  have  consumed  (he  vineyard  (of  Jehovah,  his  church  or 
chosen  people),  the  spoil  of  (he  poor  (that  which  is  taken  from  him  by  vio- 
lence) is  in  your  houses. — Hendewerk  regards  the  last  clause  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Prophet,  giving  a  reason  why  God  would  enter  into  judgment 
with  them  ;  but  it  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  commencement  of  the 
judge's  own  address,  which  is  continued  through  the  following  verse. — The 
particle  with  which  the  second  clause  begins  is  not  equivalent  to  for  (Vulg. 
Lu.)  or  bu(  (Cocc),  but  connects  what  follows  with  an  antecedent  thought 
not  expressed.  It  may  here  be  rendered  even,  and  so,  or  so  (hen  (Ges.). 
Lowth  has  as  for  you,  and  the  pronoun  is  certainly  emphatic,  you  from  whom 
it  could  least  have  been  expected,  you  who  ought  to  have  prevented  it. — 
Henderson  thinks  that  vineyard  is  here  used  collectively  for  vineyards,  and 
that  literal  spoliation  of  the  poor  is  the  particular  offence  denounced,  or  one 
here  chosen  to  represent  the  rest.  But  the  common  opinion  is  more  proba- 
ble, viz.  that  the  Prophet  here  uses  the  same  metaphor  which  forms  the  ba- 
sis of  his  parable  in  ch.  5. — The  proper  meaning  of  ^sn  is  the  afflicted 
from  whatever  cause  ;  but  it  is  commonly  applied  to  the  poor.  Ewald 
translates  rigidly  (he  sufferer's  spoil  (des  Dulders  Raub). 

V.  15.  The  Lord's  address  to  the  elders  of  Israel  is  continued  in  a  tone 
of  indignant  expostulation.  Wha(  mean  ye  (literally  wha(  is  (o  you,  equiva- 
lent in  English  to  what  have  you,  i.  e.  what  right,  what  reason,  what  mo- 
tive, what  advantage)  (ha(  ye  crush  my  people  (a  common  figure  for  severe 
oppression,  Job  5  :  4.  Prov.  22:  22)  and  grind  (he  faces  of  (he  poor  (upon 
the  ground,  by  trampling  on  their  bodies,  another  strong  figure  for  con- 
temptuous and  oppressive  violence),  sai(h  (he  Lord  Jehovah  of  Hos(s  (which 
is  added  to  remind  the  accused  of  the  sovereign  authority,  omniscience,  and 
omnipotence  of  Him  by  whom  the  charge  is  brought  against  them). — The 
first  verb  does  not  mean  merely  to  weaken  (Cocc),  bruise  (Calv.),  or  break 
(Vitr.),  but  to  break  in  pieces,  to  break  utterly,  to  crush  (Lowth). — By  the 
faces  of  the  poor  some  understand  their  persons  or  the  poor  themselves,  and 
by  grinding  them,  reducing,  attenuating,  by  exaction  and  oppression  (Ges. 
Hg.  Hk.  Hn.).  Others  refer  the  phrase  to  literal  injuries  of  the  face  by 
blows  or  wounds  (Ew.  Um.).  But  the  simplest  and  most  natural  interpre- 
tation is  that  which  applies  it  to  the  act  of  grinding  the  face  upon  the  ground 
by  trampling  on  the  body,  thus  giving  both  the  noun  and  verb  their  proper 
meaning,  and  making  the  parallelism  more  exact. — The  phrase  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verse  cannot  constitute  an  independent  clause,  wha(  mean  ye  ? 
(Barnes)  but  merely  serves  to  introduce  the  question.  # 

Vs.  16,  17.  The  Prophet  here  resumes  the  thread  which  had   been 
dropped  or  broken  at  the  close  of  v.  12,  and  recurs  to  the  undue  predomi- 

4 


50  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 

nance  of  female  influence,  but  particularly  to  the  prevalent  excess  of  female 
luxury,  not  only  as  sinful  in  itself,  but  as  a  chief  cause  of  the  violence  and 
social  disorder  previously  mentioned,  and  therefore  to  be  punished  by  disease, 
widowhood,  and  shameful  exposure.  These  two  verses,  like  the  sixth  and 
seventh,  form  one  continued  sentence,  the  and  at  the  beginning  of  v.  17  in- 
troducing the  apodosis,  for  which  reason,  and  also  on  account  of  its  relation 
to  because  in  v.  16,  its  full  force  cannot  be  expressed  by  a  literal  translation. 
And  Jehovah  said  (in  addition  to  what  goes  before,  as  if  beginning  a  new 
section  of  the  prophecy),  because  the  daughters  of  Zion  (the  women  of  Je- 
rusalem, with  special  reference  to  those  connected  with  the  leading  men) 
are  lofty  (in  their  mien  and  carriage)  and  walk  with  outstretched  neck  (lite- 
rally,  stretched  of  neck,  so  as  to  seem  taller),  and  gazing  (ogling,  leering, 
looking  wantonly)  with  their  eyes,  and  with  a  tripping  walk  they  walk,  and 
with  their  feet  they  make  a  tinkling  (i.  e.  with  the  metallic  rings  or  bands 
worn  around  the  ankles),  therefore  the  Lord  will  make  bald  the  crown  of 
the  daughters  of  Zion,  and  their  nakedness  Jehovah  will  uncover  (i.  e.  he 
will  reduce  them  to  a  state  the  very  opposite  of  their  present  pride  and 
finery). — Jerome  speaks  of  some  who  understood  the  daughters  of  Zion 
here  to  mean  the  souls  of  men.  Eichhorn  takes  it  in  the  geographical  sense 
of  smaller  towns  dependent  on  Jerusalem  (Jos.  15:  45,  47.  2  Chron.  18: 
18).  But  the  obvious  meaning  is  preferred  by  almost  all  interpreters! — 
They  are  described  as  stretching  out  the  neck,  not  by  bending  forwards,  nor 
by  tossing  the  head  backwards  (Hn.)  but  by  holding  it  high  (Sept.  viprjlcj) 
tQax^lco),  so  that  the  phrase  corresponds  to  lofty  in  the  clause  preceding. — 
Above  forty  editions  and  eight  manuscripts  read  rvrSjrtSa,  deceiving,  i.  e.  by 
a  false  expression  of  the  eyes  (Cocc.  mentientes  oculis),  or  by  disguising 
them  with  paint  (Lowth),  in  allusion  to  the  very  ancient  fashion  (2  Kings 
9:  30)  oculos  circumducto  nigrore  fucare  (Cyprian  de  Hab.  Virg.).  This 
last  sense  may  be  put  upon  the  common  reading  by  deriving  it  from  ^£to  i.  q. 
Chald.  i£t3  to  stain  or  dye,  which  may  be  the  ground  of  Luther's  version, 
with  painted  faces.  It  is  commonly  agreed,  however,  that  it  comes  from 
the  same  verb  in  the  sense  of  looking,  looking  around,  with  the  accessory 
idea  here  suggested  by  the  context  of  immodest,  wanton  looks.  This  idea 
is  expressed  by  the  Septuagint  (hv  vevpaaiv  dcp&cdficor),  the  Vulgate  (vagantes 
oculis),  Gesenius  (frech  die  Augen  werfend),  Ewald  (schielender  Augen), 
and  Henderson  (ogling  eyes.) — The  masculine  suffix  in  tarph'n  is  regarded 
by  Henderson  and  Knobel  as  containing  an  allusion  to  the  unfeminine  con- 
duct of  these  women ;  but  the  manner  here  described  is  rather  childish  than 
masculine,-  and  this  form  is  probably  used  as  the  primary  one  and  originally 
common  to  both  genders.  (See  Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  119.  1). — The  baldness 
mentioned  in  the  last  clause  is  variously  explained  as  an  allusion  to  the  shav- 
ing of  the  heads  of  prisoners  or  captives  (Knobel),  or  as  a  sign  of  mourning 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   III.  51 

(Rosenmuller)  or  as  the  effect  of  disease  (Ges.  Ew.  etc.),  and  particularly 
of  the  disease  which  bears  a  name  (Lev.  13 :  2)  derived  from  the  verb  here 
used  (Jun.  Cocc.  E.  V.).  Neither  of  these  ideas  is  expressed,  though  all 
may  be  implied,  in  the  terms  of  the  original.  For  the  construction  of 
tftKf]  ^ibn,  see  Gesen.  Heb.  Gr.  §  126.  3.  For  that  of  fh|  rYhWO,  vide 
supra,  ch.  1 :  4. 

V.  18.  Although  the  prediction  in  v.  17  implies  the  loss  of  all  ornaments 
whatever,  we  have  now  a  minute  specification  of  the  things  to  be  taken  away. 
This  specification  had  a  double  use ;  it  made  the  judgment  threatened  more 
explicit  and  significant  to  those  whom  it  concerned,  while  to  others  it  gave 
some  idea  of  the  length  to  which  extravagance  in  dress  was  carried.  There 
is  no  need  (as  Ewald  well  observes)  of  supposing  that  all  these  articles  were 
ever  worn  at  once,  or  that  the  passage  was  designed  to  be  descriptive  of  a 
complete  dress.  It  is  rather  an  enumeration  of  detached  particulars  which 
might  or  might  not  be  combined  in  any  individual  case.  As  in  other  cases 
where  a  variety  of  detached  particulars  are  enumerated  simply  by  their  names, 
it  is  now  very  difficult  to  identify  some  of  them.  This  is  the  less  to  be  re- 
gretted, as  the  main  design  of  the  enumeration  was  to  show  the  prevalent 
extravagance  in  dress,  an  effect  not  wholly  dependent  on  an  exact  interpre- 
tation of  the  several  items.  The  interest  of  the  passage,  in  its  details,  is 
not  exegetical  but  archaeological,  in  which  light  it  has  been  separately  and 
elaborately  discussed  by  learned  writers,  especially  by  Schroeder  in  his  Com- 
mentarius  philologico-criticus  de  vestitu  mulierum  Hebraearum,  ad  Jesai.  3  : 
v.  16-24,  cum  praefatione  Alberti  Schultens,  Lugd.  Bat.  1745.  Of  later 
date,  but  less  authority,  is  Hartmann's  Hebraerinn  am  Putztische  und  als 
Braut.  Nothing  more  will  be  here  attempted  than  to  give  what  is  now  most 
commonly  regarded  as  the  true  meaning  of  the  terms,  with  a  few  of  the  more 
important  variations  in  the  doubtful  cases. — In  that  day  (the  time  appointed 
for  the  judgments  just  denounced)  the  Lord  will  take  away  (literally,  cause 
to  depart,  from  the  daughters  of  Zion)  the  bravery  (in  the  old  English  senso 
of  finery)  of  the  ankle-bands  (the  noun  from  which  the  last  verb  in  v.  16  fe 
derived)  and  the  cauls  (or  caps  of  net-work)  and  the  crescents  (or  Httle 
moons,  metallic  ornaments  of  that  shape.) — Schroeder  explains  fc^aa  to. 
mean  little  suns,  corresponding  to  the  little  moons  which  follow,  and  derives 
the  word  as  a  diminutive  from  cSbw,  with  a  permutation  of  one  labial  for 
another.  This  explanation  is  adopted  by  Winer,  Ewald  and  Knobel.  Ac- 
cording to  Henderson,  the  word  means  (assellcd  tresses,  iK  e.  locks  of  hair 
braided  and  hanging  to  the  feet. 

V.  19.   The  pendants  (literally,  drops,  i.  e.  ear-rings)  and  the  bracelets 
(for  the  arm,  or  according  to  Ewald,  collars  for  the  neck,  Halsbande)  and  the 


52  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 

veils  (the  word  here  used  denoting  the  peculiar  oriental  veil,  composed  of 
two  pieces  hooked  together  below  the  eyes,  one  of  which  pieces  is  thrown 
back  over  the  head,  while  the  other  hides  the  face).  The  first  word  in  the 
verse  is  rendered  by  the  English  Version,  chains,  and  in  the  margin,  siveet- 
balls,  but  more  correctly  by  the  Septuagint,  xa&ena  or  pendant. 

V.  20.  The  caps  (or  other  ornamental  head-dresses)  and  the  ankle-chains 
(connecting  the  ankle-bands,  so  as  to  regulate  the  length  of  the  step)  and 
the  girdles,  and  the  houses  (i.  e.  places  or  receptacles)  of  breath,  (meaning 
probably  the  perfume-boxes  or  smelling-bottles  worn  by  the  oriental  women 
at  their  girdles)  and  the  amulets  (the  same  word  used  above  in  v.  3,  in  the 
sense  of  incantations,  but  which  seems  like  the  Latin  fascinum  to  have  also 
signified  the  antidote).  The  first  word  of  this  verse  is  now  commonly  ex- 
plained to  mean  turbans,  but  as  these  are  distinctly  mentioned  afterwards, 
this  term  may  denote  an  ornamental  cap,  or  perhaps  a  diadem  or  circlet  of 
gold  or  silver.  (Ewald,  Kronen.  Eng.  Vs.  bonnets.)  The  next  word  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  bracelets  by  the  Septuagint  (\psXXia)  and  Ewald  [Arm- 
spangen),  but  by  the  English  Version  more  correctly,  though  perhaps  too 
vaguely,  ornaments  of  the  leg.  For  girdles,  smelling  botiles,  and  amulets, 
the  English  Version  has  head-bands,  tablets  (but  in  the  margin,  houses  of 
the  soul),  and  ear-rings,  perhaps  on  account  of  the  superstitious  use  which 
was  sometimes  made  of  these  (Gen.  35  :  4). 

V.  21.  The  rings,  strictly  signet-rings,  but  here  put  for  finger-rings  or 
rings  in  general,  and  the  nose-jewels,  a  common  and  very  ancient  ornament 
in  eastern  countries,  so  that  the  version,  jewels  of  the  face,  is  unnecessary, 
as  well  as  inconsistent  with  the  derivation  from  Dti,  to  perforate. 

V.  22.  The  holiday-dresses,  and  the  mantles  and  the  robes  and  the 
purses.  The  first  word  is  from  y\n  to  pull  off,  and  is  almost  universally 
explained  to  mean  clothes  that  are  taken  off  and  laid  aside,  i.  e.  the  best 
suit,  holiday  or  gala  dresses,  although  this  general  expression  seems  misplaced 
in  an  enumeration  of  minute  details.  The  English  version,  changeable  suits 
of  apparel,  though  ambiguous,  seems  intended  to  express  the  same  idea. 
The  next  two  words,  according  to  their  etymology,  denote  wide  and  flowing 
upper  garments.  The  English  version  of  the  last  word,  Crispin g-pins,  sup- 
poses it  to  relate  to  the  dressing  of  the  hair.  The  same  idea  seems  to  be 
expressed  by  Calvin  (acus)  and  Cocceius  (acus  discriminales.)  The  word 
is  now  commonly  explained,  from  the  Arabic  analogy,  to  signify  bags  or 
purses  probably  of  metal. 

V.  23.     The  mirrors  and  the  tunics  (inner  garments  made  of  linen), 
and  the  turbans  (the  common  oriental  head-dress,  from  C]3S  to  wrap)  and  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 

veils. — The  first  word  is  explained  to  mean  their  thin  transparent  dresses,  by 
the  SeptuaglDt  (Jtuupptpy  hc/xoir/.u),  Kimehi,  Schroeder,  Rosenmulh t  and 
Ewald  (der  feinm  Zeuge)  ;  but  most  writers  understand  it  to  denote  the  small 
metallic  minora  carried  about  by  oriental  women.  Instead  of  turbans  (Eng. 
Vs.  hoods)  Henderson  supposes  niB"5s  to  denote  ribands  used  for  binding 
the  hair  or  fastening  the  tiara.  The  same  writer  explains  the  veil  li 
spoken  of  to  be  the  large  veil  covering  all  the  other  garments,  and  therein 
differing  from  the  small  veil  mentioned  in  v.  19.  The  same  explanation  is 
given  by  Knobel  (Ueberw  iirfe)  ;  but  other  writers  make  an  opposite  dis- 
tinction. 

V.  24.  The  threatening  is  still  continued,  but  with  a  change  of  form, 
the  things  to  be  taken  away  being  now  contrasted  with  those  which  should 
succeed  them.  And  it  shall  be  or  happen  (equivalent  in  force  to  then,  after 
all  this)  that  instead  of  perfume  (aromatic  odour  or  the  spices  which  afford  it) 
there  shall  be  stench,  and  instead  of  a  girdle  a  rope,  and  instead  of  braided 
work  baldness  (or  loss  of  hair  by  disease  or  shaving,  as  a  sign  of  captivity 
or  mourning),  and  instead  of  a  full  robe  a  girding  of  sackcloth,  burning 
instead  of  beauty.  The  inversion  of  the  terms  in  this  last  clause,  and  its 
brevity,  add  greatly  to  the  strength  of  the  expression. — Several  of  the  ancient 
versions  render  p£  by  dust  (Sept.  Arab.  Syr.),  but  it  strictly  denotes  dissolu- 
tion, putrefaction,  and  is  here  used  as  the  opposite  of  D«Ja,  viz.  stench,  not 
specifically  that  of  corpses,  wounds,  or  the  disease  supposed  to  be  referred 
to  in  v.  17  (Ros.  Ges.  Hg.  Hk.  Ew.),but  stench  in  generator  perhaps  with 
particular  allusion  to  the  squalor  of  captivity  or  mourning. — nap 3  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  a  rent,  rent  garment,  rag  or  rags,  as  signs  of  poverty  or  grief, 
by  Calvin  (laceratio),  Cocceius  (lacerum),  Lowth  (rags),  and  Knobel  (ein 
Fetzen).  But  the  meaning,  cord  or  rope,  given  in  the  Septuagint  (oyoiri(p 
Zcoorj)  and  Vulgate  (pro  zona  funiculus),  is  adopted  by  Clericus  (funis). 
Gesenius  (einen  Strick),  and  most  modern  writers. — The  Septuagint  explains 
nirpr  to  mean  a  golden  ornament  of  the  head ;  Vitringa  a  solid  ornament 
of  gold,  perhaps  from  ruap  hard.  It  is  now  explained,  from  an  Arabic 
meaning  of  the  same  root,  to  denote  turned  work,  or  a  shape  produced  by 
turning.  (See  Gesen.  s.  v.)  The  cognate  n$fH9  is  applied  to  ornamental 
work  in  wood  or  metal,  but  this,  perhaps  in  derision,  to  the  laborious  braid- 
ing of  the  hair,  as  appears  from  its  being  in  antithesis  to  baldness. — Ewald 
reads  ^  t)b  as  two  words,  meaning  the  fulness  or  wideness  (from  nra  to 
open)  of  an  ample  robe  (from  fe^l  to  revolve  or  flow  around),  contrasted 
with  a  tight  girding  of  sackcloth.  Gesenius  makes  the  sense  the  same,  but 
regards  b^ntt  as  a  compound  word  denoting  the  full  robe  itself.  The 
English  Version  (stomacher)  supposes  it  to  be  a  particular  ornamental  part 
of  dress. — The  ancient    versions  take  *\   as   a  conjunction,  and  connect 


54  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  III. 

the  last  clause  with  the  next  verse,  '  for  instead  of  beauty,  thy  men,  he* 
(Sept.  Vulg.),  or  make  it  an  independent  clause,  by  treating  ^nn  as  a  verb 
(Targ.  Pesh.)  ;  but  all  the  modern  writers  are  agreed  in  making  •»$  a  noun, 
from  n;s,  to  burn,  like  ■%  ^,  from  »n»,  hi*.  The  burning  mentioned  is 
supposed  to  be  that  of  the  skin  from  long  exposure,  by  the  French  Version 
(au  lieu  du  beau  teint  le  hale),  Clericus  (adusta  facies),  and  Lowth  (a 
sun-burnt  skin.)  But  most  interpreters  understand  by  it  a  brand,  here  men- 
tioned either  as  a  stigma  of  captivity,  or  as  a  self-inflicted  sign  of  mourning. 
Hitzig  gives  the  noun  the  general  sense  of  wound  or  mark ;  but  this  is  un- 
authorized, and  weakens  the  expression.  Sackcloth  is  mentioned  as  the 
coarsest  kind  of  cloth,  and  also  as  that  usually  worn  by  mourners.  The  two 
nouns  nteJJo  and  ntffjta  are  in  apposition,  the  first  denoting  artificial  adjust- 
ment, the  second  its  precise  form. 

V.  25.  The  Prophet  now  assigns  as  a  reason  for  the  grief  predicted  in 
v.  24,  a  general  slaughter  of  the  male  population,  the  effect  of  which  is 
again  described  in  v.  26,  and  its  extent  in  chap.  4:1,  which  belongs  more 
directly  to  this  chapter  than  the  next.  In  the  verse  before  us,  he  first  ad- 
dresses Zion  or  Jerusalem  directly,  but  again,  as  it  were,  turns  away,  and 
in  the  next  verse  speaks  of  her  in  the  third  person.  Thy  men  by  the  sword 
shall  fall  and  thy  strength  in  war, — *t(fsvo  does  not  mean  thy  common  people, 
as  opposed  to  warriors  or  soldiers  of  distinction  (Luther :  dein  Pobel)  ;  nor 
does  it  simply  mean  thy  people  or  inhabitants  (Cocc.  homines  tui.  Fr.  Vs. 
tes  gens.  Lowth,  thy  people)  ;  but  thy  men,  i.  e.  thy  males  (Vulg.  viri 
tui.  Ges.  deine  Manner). — The  present  form  used  by  Gesenius  greatly  de- 
tracts from  the  minatory  force  of  the  future,  which  is  retained  by  Hitzig, 
DeWette,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  Umbreit.  The  abstract  strength  is  resolved 
into  a  concrete  by  the  Septuagint  (^la^vovieg),  Vulgate,  Luther,  Lowth,  and 
Gesenius  ;  but  it  is  better  to  retain  the  original  expression,  not  in  the  mili- 
tary sense  of  forces  (Hg.  Hn.),  but  as  denoting  that  which  constitutes  the 
strength  of  a  community,  its  male  population  (Calv.  robur  tuum,  Fr.  Vs.  ta 
force.  Ewald,  deine  Mannschaft). 

V.  26.  The  effect  of  this  slaughter  on  the  community  is  here  described, 
.first  by  representing  the  places  of  chief  concourse  as  vocal  with  distress, 
and  then  by  personifying  the  state  or  nation  as  a  desolate  widow  seated  on 
the  ground,  a  sign  both  of  mourning  and  of  degradation.  And  her  gates 
(those  of  Zion  or  Jerusalem)  shall  lament  and  mourn,  and  being  emptied 
(or  exhausted)  she  shall  sit  upon  the  ground.  The  gates  are  said  to  mourn, 
by  a  rhetorical  substitution  of  the  place  of  action  for  the  agent  (Hende- 
werk), or  because  a  place  filled  with  cries  seems  itself  to  utter  them  (Kno- 
bel).     The  meaning  of  nr  j?3  (which  may  be  either  the  preterite  or  participle 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IV.  55 


passive  of  n^3  is  taken  in  its  proper  sense  of  emptied  or  exhausted  by  Junius 
(expurgata),  Vitringa  (evacuata),  and  Ewald  (ausgeleert).  This  is  ex- 
plained to  mean  emptied  of  her  strength,  i.  e.  weakened,  by  Hendewerk 
(entkr  ftet),  emptied  of  her  people,  i.  e.  solitary,  desolate,  by  the  Vulgate 
(desolata),  the  English  Version  (desolate),  Gesenius  (verodet),  Hitzig 
(einsam)  etc.  The  reference  of  this  word  to  her  former  condition  seems 
peculiar  to  Clericus  (quae  munda  erat).  She  is  described  not  as  lying  (Calv. 
Cler.),  but  sitting  on  the  ground,  as  on  one  of  Vespasian's  coins  a  woman  is 
represented,  in  a  sitting  posture,  leaning  against  a  palm-tree,  with  the  legend 
Judaea  Capta. 

Ch.  4:  v.  1.  The  paucity  of  males  in  the  community,  resulting  from 
this  general  slaughter,  is  now  expressed  by  a  lively  figure  representing  seven 
women  as  earnestly  soliciting  one  man  in  marriage,  and  that  on  the  most 
disadvantageous  terms,  renouncing  the  support  to  which  they  were  by  law 
entitled.    And  in  thai  day  (then,  after  the  judgments  just  predicted)  seven 
women,  (i.  e.  several,  this  number  being  often  used  indefinitely)  shall  lay 
hold  of  one  man  (earnestly  accost  him),  saying,  we  will  eat  our  own  bread 
and  wear  our  own  apparel,  only  let  thy  name  be  called  upon  us  (an  idiomatic 
phrase  meaning  let  us  be  called  by  thy  name,  let  us  be  recognized  as  thine), 
take  thou  away  our  reproach,  the  'reproach  of  widowhood'  (Isai.  54:  4), 
or  celibacy,  or  rather  that  of  childlessness  which  they  imply,  and  which  was 
regarded  with   particular  aversion  by  the  Jews  before  the  time  of  Christ. — 
This  verse  appears  to  have  been  severed  from  its  natural  connexion  in  ac- 
cordance with  an  ancient  notion  that  the  one  man  was  Christ,  and  the  seven 
women,  souls  believing  on  him.     This  view  of  the  passage  may  indeed  have 
been  either  the  cause  or  the  effect  of  the  usual  division  and  arrangement  of 
the  text.     Some  writers  think  that  the  Prophet  intended  to  present  an  accu- 
mulation of  strange  things,  in  order  to  show  the  changed  condition  of  the 
people ;  women  forsaking   their  natural  modesty,  soliciting  marriage,  with 
violent  importunity,  in  undue  proportion,  and  on  the  most  disadvantageous 
terms.     But  the  more  probable  opinion  is  the  common  one,  that  he  simply 
meant  to  set  forth  by  a  lively  figure  the  disproportion  between  the  sexes  in- 
troduced by  a  destructive  war.     Instead  of  our  own  bread,  our  own  clothe  , 
Cocceius  would  simply  read  our  bread,   our  clothes,  and  understand  the 
clause  as  a   promise  of  domestic   diligence.     The  common   interpretation 
agrees  better  with  the  other  circumstances  and  expressions  of  the  verse  and 
context.     Luther  gives  ^bx  a  subjunctive  form,  that  our  reproach  may  be 
taken  from  us.     The  English  Version  and  Henderson  make  it  an  infinitive, 
to  take  away;  Barnes  a  participle,  taking  aicay ;  but  the  imperative  con- 
struction, which  is  given  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible,  and  preferred 
by  almost  all  translators,  ancient  and  modern,  agrees  best  with  the  absence 


56  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IV. 

of  a  preposition,  and  adds  to  the  vivacity  of  the  address.  To  this  verse 
Calvin  cites  a  beautiful  parallel  from  Lucan,  which  is  copied  by  Grotius, 
and  credited  to  him  by  later  writers — 

Da  tantum  nomen  inane 
Connubii :  liceat  tumulo  scripsisse  Catonis 
Marcia. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Besides  the  first  verse,  which  has  been  explained  already,  this  chapter 
contains  a  prophecy  of  Christ  and  of  the  future  condition  of  the  Church. 
The  Prophet  here  recurs  to  the  theme  with  which  the  prophecy  opened, 
(ch.  2:  1—4),  but  with  this  distinction,  that  instead  of  dwelling  on  the  in- 
fluence exerted  by  the  church  upon  the  world,  he  here  exhibits  its  internal 
condition  under  the  reign  of  the  Messiah. 

He  first  presents  to  view  the  person  by  whose  agency  the  church  is  to 
be  brought  into  a  glorious  and  happy  state,  and  who  is  here  described  as  a 
partaker  both  of  the  divine  and  human  nature,  v.  2.  He  then  describes 
the  character  of  those  who  are  predestined  to  share  in  the  promised  exalta- 
tion, v.  3.  He  then  shows  the  necessity,  implied  in  these  promises,  of 
previous  purgation  from  the  defilement  described  in  the  foregoing  chapters, 
v.  4.  When  this  purgation  is  effected,  God  will  manifest  his  presence 
gloriously  throughout  his  church,  v.  5.  To  these  promises  of  purity  and 
honour  he  now  adds  one  of  protection  and  security,  with  which  the  prophecy 
concludes,  v.  6. 

It  is  commonly  agreed  that  this  prediction  has  been  only  partially  ful- 
filled, and  that  its  complete  fulfilment  is  to  be  expected,  not  in  the  literal 
Mount  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  but  in  those  various  assemblies  or  societies  of 
true  believers,  which  now  possess  in  common  the  privileges  once  exclusively 
enjoyed  by  the  Holy  City  and  the  chosen  race  of  which  it  was  the  centre 
and  metropolis. 

V.  2.  At  this  point  the  Prophet  passes  from  the  tone  of  threatening  to 
that  of  promise.  Having  foretold  a  general  destruction,  he  now  intimates 
that  some  should  escape  it,  and  be  rendered  glorious  and  happy  by  the 
presence  and  favour  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  at  the  same  time  the  Son  of 
Man.  In  that  day  (after  this  destruction)  shall  the  Branch  (or  Offspring) 
of  Jehovah  be  for  honour  and  for  glory,  and  the  Fruit  of  the  Earth  for 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IV.  57 

sublimity  and  beauty,  to  the  escaped  of  Israel,  literally,  the  escape  or  deliv- 
erance of  Israel,  the  abstract  being  used  for  the  collective  concrete, meaning 
those  who  should  survive  these  judgments.— -b  mm  may  be  taken  either  in 
the  sense  of  being  for,  serving  as,  or  in  that  of  becoming,  as  in  ch.  1:  14, 
21,  22,  31. — As  max,  in  its  physical  and  proper  sense,  means  growth,  vege- 
tation, or  that  which  grows  and  vegetates  (Gen.  19:  25.  Ps.  65:  11.  Hos. 
8:  7.  Ezek.  16:  7),  it  is  here  explained  by  Hitzig,  Maurer  and  Ewald,  as 
synonymous  with  fruit  of  the  earth,  but  in  its  lowest  sense,  that  of  vege- 
table products  or  abundant  harvests.  To  this  interpretation,  which  is 
adopted  by  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus,  it  may  be  objected,  first,  that  such  a 
subject  is  wholly  incongruous  with  the  predicates  applied  to  it,  honourable, 
glorious,  sublime  and  beautiful ;  secondly,  that  this  explanation  of  rnas  is 
precluded  by  the  addition  of  the  name  Jehovah,  a  difficulty  aggravated  by 
the  parallelism,  which  requires  the  relation  between  branch  and  Jehovah  to 
be  the  same  as  that  between  fruit  and  earth,  and  as  the  last  phrase  means 
the  offspring  of  the  earth,  so  the  first  must  mean  the  offspring  of  Jehovah, 
an  expression  which  can  only  be  applied  to  persons.  This  last  objection 
applies  also  to  the  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  meaning  spiritual  gifts  in 
opposition  to  temporal  or  earthly  gifts  (Calv.  Jun.  Schleusner).  It  does  not 
lie  against  that  proposed  by  Grotius,  and  adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
Koppe  and  Eichhorn,  by  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  and  more  recently 
by  Knobel,  which  applies  the  phrase  to  the  better  race  of  Israelites  who  were 
to  spring  up  after  the  return  from  exile.  But  although  the  sense  thus  put 
upon  the  word  is  personal  it  is  not  individual,  as  in  every  other  case  where 
hex  is  used  figuratively  elsewhere,  but  collective.  Another  objection  to  it  is, 
that  this  better  race  of  Israelites  are  the  very  persons  here  called  the  escaped 
of  Israel,  who  would  then  be  described  as  a  beauty  and  a  glory  to  them- 
selves. Knobel  evades  this  objection  by  denying  that  the  last  words  of  the 
verse  have  any  connexion  with  the  first  clause ;  but  his  evasion  is  an  arbi- 
trary one,  suggested  by  the  difficulty  which  attends  his  doctrine. — The  first 
of  these  objections  applies  also  to  Hendewerk's  interpretation  of  the  phrase 
as  meaning  the  government  or  administration,  (das  regierende  Personale 
des  Staates). — The  usage  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  application  to  an  individual 
will  be  clear  from  the  following  examples.  "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith 
the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  branch,  and  a  king  shall 
reign  and  prosper"  (Jer.  23:  5).  "In  those  days  and  at  that  time  will  I 
cause  the  branch  of  righteousness  to  grow  up  unto  David,  and  he  shall 
execute  judgment"  (Jer.  33  :  15).  Behold  I  will  bring  forth  my  servant  the 
Branch"  (Zech. 3:  8).  "Behold  the  man  whose  name  is  the  branch" 
(Zech.  6:  12).  The  Branch  is  here  represented  as  a  man,  a  king,  a 
righteous  judge,  a  servant  of  God.  Hence  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
the  same  person,  whom  Jeremiah  calls  the  branch  (or  son)  of  David,  is 


58  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IV. 


called  by  Isaiah  in  the  verse  before  us  the  branch  (or  son)  of  Jehovah. 
This  view  of  the  passage  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  following  consid- 
erations. It  is  free  from  the  difficulties  which  attend  all  others.  It  is  the 
ancient  Jewish  interpretation  found  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  which  ex- 
plains the  Branch  of  Jehovah  as  meaning  his  Messiah,  (**%  RTvq&e).  The 
parallel  passages  already  quoted  are  referred  to  the  Messiah  even  by  Gesenius, 
who  only  hesitates  to  make  the  same  admission  here,  because  he  thinks  the 
parallel  phrase,  fruit  of  the  earth,  cannot  be  so  applied.  But  no  expres- 
sion could  in  fact  be  more  appropriate,  whether  it  be  translated  fruit  of  the 
land  and  referred  to  his  Jewish  extraction  (Hengstenberg),  or  fruit  of  the 
earth  and  referred  to  his  human  nature  (Vitr.  Hn.).  On  the  latter  suppo- 
sition, which  appears  more  probable,  the  parallel  terms  correspond  exactly  to 
the  two  parts  of  Paul's  description  (Rom.  1  :  3,  4),  and  to  the  two  titles 
used  in  the  New  Testament  in  reference  to  Christ's  two  natures,  Son  of 
God  and  Son  of  Man. 

V.  3.  Having  foretold  the  happiness  and  honour  which  the  Son  of  God 
should  one  day  confer  upon  his  people,  the  Prophet  now  explains  to  whom 
the  promise  was  intended  to  apply.  In  the  preceding  verse  they  were 
described  by  their  condition  as  survivors  of  God's  desolating  judgments.  In 
this  they  are  described  by  their  moral  character,  and  by  their  eternal  desti- 
nation to  this  character  and  that  which  follows  it. — And  it  shall  be,  happen, 
come  to  pass,  that  the  left  in  Zion  and  the  spared  in  Jerusalem,  singular 
forms  with  a  collective  application,  shall  be  called  holy,  literally,  holy  shall 
be  said  to  him,  i.  e.  this  name  shall  be  used  in  addressing  him,  or  rather  may 
be  used  with  truth,  implying  that  the  persons  so  called  should  be  what  they 
seemed  to  be,  every  one  written,  enrolled,  ordained,  to  life,  in  Jerusalem. — 
The  omission  of  n^y  (Lu.  Ges.  De  W.  Ew.  Hn.)  is  a  needless  departure 
from  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original.  The  expression  may  be  paraphrased, 
and  this  shall  be  the  consequence  or  this  shall  follow,  preparing  the  mind 
for  an  event  of  moment.  As  tiWn  may  be  either  a  plural  adjective  or 
abstract  noun,  some  understand  the  phrase  to  mean  enrolled  among  the  living 
(Lu.  Calv.  Cler.  E.  V.  Low.  Bs.),  others  enrolled  to  life  (Jun.  Cocc.  Vitr. 
J.  H.Mich.  J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  Hg.  De  W.  Ew.  Urn.  Hn.).  In  either  case 
the  figure  denotes  not  simply  actual  life  but  destination  to  it.  For  the  origin 
and  usage  of  the  figure  itself,  see  Ex.  30:  12.  Num.  1 :  18.  Ezek.  13 :  9. 
Phil.  4  :  3.  Rev.  3 :  5. 

V.  4.  This  verse  contains  a  previous  condition  of  the  promise  in  v.  3, 
which  could  not  be  fulfilled  until  the  church  was  purged  from  the  pollution 
brought  upon  it  by  the  sins  of  those  luxurious  women  and  of  the  people 
generally,  a  work  which  could  be  effected  only  by  the  convincing   and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IV.  59 

avenging  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    The  construction  is  continued  from 
the  verse  preceding.    All  this  shall  come  to  pass,  if,  (provided  that,  on  this 
condition,  which  idea  may  he  here  expressed  by  when)  the  Lord  shall  have 
washed  away  (the  Hebrew  word  denoting  specially  the  washing  of  the  body, 
and  suggesting  the  idea  of  the  legal  ablutions)  the  filth  (a  very  strong  term, 
transferred  from   physical  to  moral  defilement)  of  the  daughters  of  Zion 
(the  women  before  mentioned),  and  the  blood  (literally  bloods,  i.  e.  blood- 
shed or  blood-guiltiness)  of  Jerusalem  (i.  e.  of  the  people  in  general),  by  a 
spirit  of  judgment  and  a  spirit  of  burning,  i.  e.  by  the  judgment  and  burn- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  a  twofold  allusion  to  the  purifying  and  destroy- 
ing energy  of  fire,  or  rather  to  its  purifying  by  destroying,  purging  the  whole 
by  the  destruction  of  a  part,  and  thereby  manifesting  the  divine  justice  as 
an  active  principle.     The  daughters  of  Zion  are  by  some  understood  to  be 
the  other  towns  of  Judah  (Rosenmuller,  Hengstenberg,  Umbreit),  the  objec- 
tion to  which  is  not  its  unpoetical  character  (Gesenius),  but  its  disagreement 
both  with  the  immediate  connexion   and  with  the  use  of  the  same  terms  in 
ch.  3 :  16.     Others   understand  by  daughters  the    inhabitants    in    general 
(Sept.  sons  and  daughters),  or  the  female  inhabitants  regarded  as  mothers 
and  as   forming  the  character  of  their  children  (Hendewerk).     But  it  is 
natural   that   in   closing  his  prediction   the  Prophet  should  recur  to  those 
luxurious  women,  to  whose  influence  much  of  the  disorder  and  oppression 
which  prevailed  may  have  been  owing.     He  then  makes  a  transition  from 
particular  to   general   expressions.     The  idea   does   not   seem  to  be,  the 
uncleanness  of  the  women  and  the  blood-guiltiness  of  the  men  (Hk.  Hn.),  or 
the  uncleanness  and  blood-guiltiness  both  of  men  and  women  (Kn.),  but  the 
uncleanness  of  the  women  and  the  blood-guiltiness  of  the  people  generally. — 
IWi  does  not  mean  to  remove  (Cler.  Low.  Bs.),  nor  to  drive  out  (Lu.  Urn.), 
nor  to  extirpate  (Ges.  Hg.  Hk.  Ew.),  nor  to  expiate  (Calv.),  but  simply 
to  wash  or  purge  out  (Sept.  Vulg.  Cocc.  E.  V.  Hn.),  the  verb  being  specially 
applied  to  the  washing  of  the  altar  and  sacrifices  (2  Chr.  4 :  6.  Ezek.  40  : 
38).     Two  of  these  senses  are  combined  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  (lavando  eje- 
cerit). — The  word  spirit  cannot  be  regarded  as  pleonastic  or  simply  emphatic 
(Hn.)  without  affording  license  to  a  like  interpretation  in  all  other  cases. 
It  is  variously  explained  here   as  meaning  breath  (Hg.  Urn.),  word  (Targ. 
Jon.  T*i  x"!*:^:;),  and  power  or  influence  (Ges.  Hengstenberg,  Bs.,  etc.). 
But  since  this  is  the  term  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  that 
person  of  the  Godhead,  whom   the   Scriptures  uniformly  represent  as  the 
executor  of  the  divine  purposes,  and  since  this  sense  is  perfectly  appropriate 
here,  the  safest  and  most  satisfactory  interpretation  is  that  which  understands 
by  it  a  personal  spirit,  or  as  Luther  expresses  it,  the  Spirit  who  shall  judge 
and  burn.     Even  Ewald  adopts  the  same  interpretation  upon  grounds,  as  it 
would  seem,  entirely  philological.     Calvin  supposes  spirit  of  burning  and 


60  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IV. 


of  judgment  to  be  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  burning  and  judgment  of  the 
Spirit.  He  also  gives  the  preposition  its  primary  meaning,  as  do  the  Seventy 
(iv  nvevfiari),  in  (i.e.  in  the  person  of)  the  Spirit.  The  common  explana- 
tion is  by  (i.  e.  by  means  of)  or  through  (i.  e.  through  the  intervention  of) 
the  Spirit. — The  translation  of  "nsa  by  consumption  or  extermination  (Cocc. 
Ges.  Hg.  De  W.  Hk.  Urn.)  is  neither  so  precise  nor  so  poetical  as  that  by 
burning  (Sept.  Pesh.  Vulg.  Lu.  Calv.  E.  V.  Low.  Bs.  Ew.).— J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis  translates  this  clause,  by  the  righteous  zeal  of  the  tribunals  and  by  a 
destructive  wind! 

V.  5.  The  church  is  not  only  to  be  purified  by  God's  judgments,  but 
glorified  by  his  manifested  presence,  and  in  that  state  of  glory  kept  secure 
by  his  protection.  The  presence  of  God  is  here  denoted  by  the  ancient 
symbol  of  a  fiery  cloud,  and  is  promised  to  the  church  in  its  whole  extent  and 
to  its  several  assemblies,  as  distinguished  from  the  one  indivisible  congrega- 
tion, and  its  one  exclusive  place  of  meeting,  under  the  old  economy.  And 
Jehovah  will  create  (implying  the  exercise  of  almighty  power  and  the  pro- 
duction of  a  new  effect)  over  the  whole  extent  (literally,  place  or  space)  of 
Mount  Zion  (in  its  widest  and  most  spiritual  sense,  as  appears  from  what 
follows),  and  over  her  assemblies,  a  cloud  by  day  and  smoke  (i.  e.  a  cloud 
of  smoke),  and  the  brightness  of  a  flaming  fi re  by  night ;  for  over  all  the 
glory  (previously  promised,  there  shall  be)  a  covering  (or  shelter). — Most 
of  the  modern  versions  make  this  the  apodosis  of  a  sentence  beginning  with 
v.  4,  '  When  the  Lord  shall  have  washed,  etc.,  then  will  Jehovah  create/ 
etc.  (Cler.  Low.  Ges.  Bs.  Hn.  Um.  Kn.)  But  although  this  is  grammatical 
and  leaves  the  general  sense  unchanged,  the  absence  of  the  1  at  the  begin- 
ning of  v.  4,  and  its  insertion  here,  seem  to  show  that  v.  4  is  itself  the  apo- 
dosis of  a  sentence  beginning  with  v.  3,  and  that  a  new  one  begins  here 
(Calv.  Cocc.  Vitr.  J.  D.  Mich.  E.  V.  Hg.  De  W.  Hk.  Ew.).  The  present 
tense  (Ges.  De  W.  Ew.  Um.)  is  not  so  well  suited  to  the  context  as  the 
future  (Hg.  Hk.  etc.).  The  older  writers  give  |is»  the  sense  of  dwelling- 
place  ;  but  the  modern  lexicographers  explain  it  to  mean  place  in  general. 
•paa  ba  may  be  rendered  either  whole  place  or  every  place  without  a  change 
of  sense  (vide  supra,  ch.  1 :  5.  3 :  1).  The  two  appearances  described  in 
this  verse  are  those  presented  by  a  fire  at  different  times,  a  smoke  by  day 
and  a  flame  by  night.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  explaining  }ti9  to 
mean  vapour  (Knobel),  or  of  connecting  it  with  what  follows  (Sept.  Vitr. 
Cler.  Hitzig.  Hengstenberg)  in  violation  of  the  Masoretic  accents. — The 
meaning  of  the  promise  is  the  same  whether  lywpjo  be  explained  to  mean 
her  assemblies  (Low.  Hengst.  Ew.  Um.  Kn.)  or  her  places  of  assembly  (Lu. 
J.  D.  Mich.  Ges.  Hn.)  ;  but  the  former  is  the  sense  most  agreeable  to  usage. 
— Lowth  omits  ^=  before  yoa  on  the  authority  of  eight  manuscripts,  and  in- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IV.  T>1 

sorts  it  before  Miopia  on  the  authority  of  one  manuscript  and  the  Septuagmt. 
More  than  forty  manuscripts  and  nearly  fifty  editions  read  mop©,  and 
almost  all  interpreters  explain  it  as  a  plural. — In  the  last  clause  *?  has  its 
usual  meaning  and  not  that  of  yea  (Low.),  which  (Hn.),or  so  thai  (Kn.). — 
Clericus,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Lee  (Heb.  Lex.  s.  v.  mpm)  make  Ti3|  the 
subject  of  the  last  clause,  *  over  all,  glory  shall  be  a  defence,'  which  is 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  Masoretic  pointing.  Instead  of  over  Kocher 
reads  above,  i.  e.  superior  to  all  former  glory,  a  construction  which  is  given 
in  the  Clmldee  Paraphrase,  yq  fVP  (more  than).  Some  regard  this  as  the 
statement  of  a  general  fact,  l  over  every  thing  glorious  there  is  protection/ 
i.  e.  men  are  accustomed  to  protect  what  they  value  highly  (Vitr.  Ros. 
Hengst.  Ew.)  ;  but  the  great  majority  of  writers  understand  it  as  a  prophecy 
or  promise. — nsn  is  construed  as  a  passive  verb,  it  is  or  shall  be  covered, 
by  the  Septuagint  (n-AEnaa\>it<sejai),  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Knobel.  But  as  this 
is  a  harsh  construction,  and  as  the  Pual  of  hbm  does  not  occur  elsewhere,  it 
is  better,  with  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Hengstenberg,  and  the  older  writers,  to 
explain  it  as  a  noun  derived  from  tftft,  and  agreeing  with  the  verb  is  or  shall 
be  understood,  or,  as  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  suppose,  with  the  same  verb  in 
the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse,  '  For  over  all  the  glory  a  covering  and 
shelter  there  shall  be.'  The  sense  is  not  affected  by  this  last  construction, 
but  such  a  change  in  the  division  of  the  text  can  be  justified  only  by 
necessity. 

V.  6.  The  promise-  of  refuge  and  protection  is  repeated  or  continued 
under  the  figure  of  a  shelter  from  heat  and  rain,  natural  emblems  for  distress 
and  danger.  And  there  shall  be  a  shelter,  (properly  a  booth  or  covert  of 
leaves  and  branches,  to  serve)  for  a  shadow  by  day  (as  a  protection)  from  heat, 
and  for  a  covert  and  for  a  hiding-place  from  storm  and  from  rain. — Instead 
of  making  mso  the  subject  of  the  sentence  (E.  V.  De  W.  Hn.  Urn.),  some 
regard  it  as  the  predicate  referring  to  a  subject  understood.  He,  i.  e.  God, 
shall  be  a  shelter,  etc.  (Ges.  Bs.).  It,  the  cloud  or  the  protection,  shall  be 
a  shelter,  etc.  (Low.  Hg.). — That  M3D  means  the  tabernacle  or  temple, 
which  it  never  does  elsewhere,  is  a  notion  peculiar  to  Clericus. — Q^t  is  not 
a  whirlwind  (Vulg.)  or  a  hail-storm  (J.  D.  Mich.),  but  an  inundation  (Jun. 
Cler.  J.  H.  Mich.),  i.  e.  a  flood  of  rain,  a  pouring,  driving  rain  (Luther, 
Wetter.  Gesenius,  Ungewitter). 


62  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


CHAPTER  V. 

This  chapter  contains  a  description  of  the  prevalent  iniquities  of  Judah7 
and  of  the  judgments  which,  in  consequence  of  these,  had  been  or  were  to 
be  inflicted  on  the  people.  The  form  of  the  prophecy  is  peculiar,  consisting 
of  a  parable  and  a  commentary  on  it. 

The  prophet  first  delivers  his  whole  message  in  a  parabolic  form,  vs.  1— 
7.  He  then  explains  and  amplifies  it  at  great  length,  vs.  8-30. 

The  parable  sets  forth  the  peculiar  privileges,  obligations,  guilt,  and 
doom  of  Israel,  under  the  figure  of  a  highly  favoured  vineyard  which,  instead 
of  good  fruit,  brings  forth  only  wild  grapes,  and  is  therefore  given  up  to 
desolation,  vs.  l-<6\  The  application  is  expressly  made  by  the  Prophet 
himself,  v.  7. 

In  the  remainder  of  the  chapter,  he  enumerates  the  sins  which  were 
included  in  the  general  expressions  of  v.  7,  and  describes  their  punishment. 
In  doing  this,  he  first  gives  a  catalogue  of  sins  with  their  appropriate  punish- 
ments annexed,  vs.  8-24.  He  then  describes  the  means  used  to  inflict  them, 
and  the  final  issue,  vs.  25-30. 

The  catalogue  of  sins  and  judgments  comprehends  two  series  of  woes  or 
denunciations.  In  the  first,  each  sin  is  followed  by  its  punishment,  vs.  8— 
17.  In  the  second,  the  sins  follow  one  another  in  uninterrupted  succession, 
and  the  punishment  is  reserved  until  the  close,  vs.  18-24. 

In  the  former  series,  the  first  woe  is  uttered  against  avaricious  and  ambi- 
tious grasping  after  lands  and  houses,  to  be  punished  by  sterility  and  deso- 
lation, vs.  8-10.  The  second  woe  is  uttered  against  drunkenness,  untimely 
mirth,  and  disregard  of  providential  warnings,  appropriately  punished  by 
captivity,  hunger,  thirst,  and  general  mortality,  vs.  11-14.  To  these  two 
woes  are  added  a  general  declaration  of  their  purpose  and  effect,  to  humble 
man  and  exalt  God,  and  a  repeated  threatening  of  general  desolation  as  a 
punishment  of  both  the  sins  just  mentioned,  vs.  15-17. 

The  sins  denounced  in  the  second  series  of  woes  are  presumptuous  and 
incredulous  defiance  of  God's  judgments,  the  deliberate  confounding  of  moral 
distinctions,  undue  reliance  upon  human  wisdom,  and  drunkenness  considered 
as  a  vice  of  judges,  and  as  causing  the  perversion  of  justice,  vs.  18-23.  To 
these  he  adds  a  general  threatening  of  destruction  as  a  necessary  consequence 
of  their  forsaking  God,  v.  24. 

In  declaring  the  means  used  to  effect  this  condign  retribution,  the 
Prophet  sets  before  us  two  distinct  stages  or  degrees  of  punishment.     The 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V.  63 

first,  which  is  briefly  and  figuratively  represented  as  a  violent  and  destructive 
stroke  of  God's  hand,  is  described  as  ineffectual,  v.  25.  To  complete  the 
work,  another  is  provided,  in  the  shape  of  an  invading  enemy,  before  whom, 
after  a  brief  fluctuation,  Israel  disappears  in  total  darkness,  vs.  26-30. 

In  its  general  design  and  subject,  this  prophecy  resembles  those  which 
go  before  it ;  but  it  differs  remarkably  from  both  in  holding  up  to  view  ex- 
clusively the  dark  side  of  the  picture,  the  guilt  and  doom  of  the  ungodly 
Jews,  without  the  cheering  contrast  of  purgation  and  deliverance  to  be  ex- 
perienced from  the  same  events  by  the  true  Israel,  the  Church  of  God.  This 
omission,  which  of  course  must  be  supplied  from  other  prophecies,  is  by 
Hitzig  incorrectly  represented  as  a  reason  for  regarding  this  as  the  conclusion 
of  the  one  preceding,  to  confirm  which  supposition  he  appeals  to  certain  verbal 
coincidences,  particularly  that  between  v.  15  and  ch.  2 :  9,  17.  But  these, 
and  the  more  general  resemblance  of  the  chapters,  can  only  prove  at  most 
what  must  be  true  on  any  hypothesis,  to  wit,  that  the  prophecies  relate  to  the 
same  subject  and  belong  to  the  same  period.  A  similar  coincidence  between 
v.  25  and  ch.  9 :  11, 16, 20.  10:4,  has  led  Ewald  to  interpolate  the  whole  of 
that  passage  (from  ch.  9  :  5  to  ch.  10:4)  between  the  twenty-fifth  and  twenty- 
sixth  verses  of  this  chapter ;  as  if  the  same  form  of  expression  could  not  be 
employed  by  the  same  author  upon  different  occasions,  and  as  if  such  a 
treatment  of  the  text  did  not  open  the  door  to  boundless  license  of  conjec- 
ture. With  still  less  semblance  of  a  reason,  Hendewerk  connects  this  chap- 
ter with  the  first  nine  verses  of  the  seventh  and  the  whole  of  the  seventeenth, 
as  making  up  one  prophecy.  The  old  opinion,  still  retained  by  Gesenius, 
Henderson,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  is  that  this  chapter,  if  not  an  independent 
prophecy,  is  at  least  a  distinct  appendix  to  the  one  preceding,  with  which  h 
is  connected,  not  only  in  the  way  already  mentioned,  but  also  by  the  seem- 
ing allusion  in  the  first  verse  to  ch.  3 :  14,  where  the  Church  of  God  is 
called  his  vineyard,  a  comparison  which  reappears  in  other  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  is  carried  out  in  several  of  our  Saviour's  parables. 

This  chapter,  like  the  first,  is  applicable  not  to  one  event  exclusively, 
but  to  a  sequence  of  events  which  was  repeated  more  than  once,  although 
its  terms  were  never  fully  realized  until  the  closing  period  of  the  Jewish  his- 
tory, after  the  true  Messiah  was  rejected,  when  one  ray  of  hope  was  quench- 
ed after  another,  until  all  grew  dark  for  ever  in  the  skies  of  Israel. 

V.  1.  The  parable  is  given  in  vs.  1-6,  and  applied  in  v.  7.  It  is  intro- 
duced in  such  a  manner  as  to  secure  a  favourable  hearing  from  those  whose 
conduct  it  condemns,  and  in  some  measure  to  conceal  its  drift  until  the  appli- 
cation. The  Prophet  proposes  to  sing  a  song,  i.  e.  to  utter  a  rhythmical 
and  figurative  narrative,  relating  to  a  friend  of  his,  his  friend's  own  song 
indeed  about  his  vineyard.     In  the  last  clause  he  describes  the  situation  of 


64  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 

the  vineyard,  its  favourable  exposure  and  productive  soil.  I  will  sing,  if  you 
please  (or  let  me  sing,  I  pray  you),  of  my  friend  (i.  e.  concerning  him),  my 
friend's  song  of  his  vineyard  (i.  e.  concerning  it).  My  friend  had  a  vine- 
yard in  a  hill  of  great  fertility  (literally  in  a  horn,  a  son  of  fatness,  ac- 
cording to  the  oriental  idiom  which  applies  the  terms  of  human  kindred  to 
relations  of  every  kind.) — The  common  version,  now  will  I  sing,  seems  to 
take  to  as  an  adverb  of  time,  whereas  it  is  a  particle  of  entreaty,  used  to 
soften  the  expression  of  a  purpose,  and  to  give  a  tone  of  mildness  and  cour- 
tesy to  the  address. — Sing  and  song  are  used,  as  with  us,  in  reference  to 
poetry,  without  implying  actual  musical  performance. — Calvin's  translation, 
(for  my  beloved,  i.  e.  in  his  name,  his  person,  his  behalf)  is  at  variance  with 
the  usage  of  the  particle.  Grotius's  (to  my  beloved)  is  inappropriate,  as  the 
friend  is  not  addressed,  and  this  is  not  a  song  of  praise.  Maurer's  (of  my 
beloved,  i.  e.  belonging  to  him,  like  wb  a  Psalm  of  David)  is  a  form  only 
used  in  titles  or  inscriptions.  The  h  has  doubtless  the  same  sense  before 
this  word  as  before  his  vineyard.  Knobel  supposes  song  of  my  friend  also 
to  denote  a  song  respecting  him,  because  he  is  not  introduced  as  speaking 
till  v.  3.  But  for  that  very  reason,  it  is  first  called  a  song  concerning  him, 
and  then  his  own  song. — The  cognate  words  WJJ  and  *yta  are  referred  by 
some  to  different  subjects  ;  but  their  identity  is  plain  from  the  possession  of 
the  vineyard  being  ascribed  to  both. — The  Vulgate  and  Luther  give  to  thi 
its  usual  sense  of  uncle,  and  Cocceius  applies  it  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is 
altogether  arbitrary.  It  seems  to  be  joined  with  TWJ  to  vary  the  expression 
of  the  same  idea,  that  of  friend,  the  unusual  terms  being  used  not  mystically 
but  poetically.  The  Prophet  must  be  understood  as  speaking  of  a  human 
friend,  until  he  explains  himself. — Umbreit  makes  "j^  govern  the  next  phrase  ; 
on  the  projection  (Vorsprung)  of  a  fat  place ;  but  the  latter  is  in  that  case 
too  indefinite. — Clericus  supposes  an  allusion  to  a  horn  of  oil,  Vitringa  to 
the  curved  shape  of  the  Holy  Land  ;  but  most  interpreters  agree  that  horn 
is  here  used,  as  in  various  other  languages,  for  the  sharp  peak  of  a  mountain 
(e.  g.  Schreckhom  and  Wetterhorn  in  Switzerland)  or,  as  in  Arabic,  for  a 
detached  hill. — The  preposition  does  not  properly  mean  on  but  in,  implying 
that  the  vineyard  only  occupied  a  part,  and  that  this  was  not  the  summit, 
but  the  acclivity  exposed  to  the  sun,  which  is  the  best  situation  for  a  vine- 
yard. (Apertos  Bacchus  amat  colles.  Virg.  Georg.  2:  112.) 

V.  2.  Not  only  was  the  vineyard  favourably  situated,  but  assiduously 
tilled,  protected  from  intrusion,  and  provided  with  every  thing  that  seemed 
to  be  needed  to  secure  an  abundant  vintage.  And  he  digged  it  up,  and 
gathered  out  the  stones  thereof,  and  planted  it  with  Sorek,  mentioned  else- 
where (Jer.  2:  21)  as  the  choicest  kind  of  vine,  which  either  gave  or  owed 
its  name  to  the  valley  of  Sorek  (Judg.  16.  4),  and  built  a  tower  in  the  midst 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V.  65 

of  it,  partly  for  protection  from  men  and  beasts,  and  partly  for  the  pleasure 
and  convenience  of  the  owner,  and  also  a  wine-vat,  to  receive  the  juice  from 
the  wine-press  immediately  above,  he  hewed  in  it,  i.  e.  in  a  rock  (or  hewed 
may  be  simply  used  for  excavated  in  the  ground,  a  common  situation  in  hot 
countries  for  the  laciis,  reservoir,  or  wine- vat),  and  he  waited  for  it,  i.  e.  he 
allowed  it  time,  to  make,  produce,  bear,  bring  forth,  grapes,  and  it  produced 
wild  grapes. — Instead  of  he  waited  for  it,  Umbreit  reads  he  hoped,  Lowth, 
Barnes,  and  Henderson,  he  expected,  and  the  authorized  version,  he  looked, 
in  the  old  English  sense.  But  the  first  translation,  which  is  that  of  the 
Septuagint  (tfieire),  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  because  it  conveys  the  full 
sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  without  creating  any  difficulty  in  the  subsequent 
application  of  the  figure. — J.  D.  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  and  Rosenmuller  take 
=nrx2  in  the  sense  of  aconite  or  nighJ|^de  ;  a  plant  which  does  not  grow 
in  Palestine.  Most  modern  writers  aj^ove  the  version  of  Jerome,  labrusca, 
the  labrusca  vitis  of  Pliny,  and  labrusca  uva  of  Columella,  an  acrid  and 
unwholesome  grape,  contrasted  with  the  good  grape  by  Sedulius  (1 :  29) 
precisely  as  the  two  are  here  contrasted  by  Isaiah  : 

Labruscam  placidis  quid  adhuc  praeponitis  uvis? 

For  he  digged  it  up  and  gathered  out  the  stones  thereof  the  Septuagint  has 
he  hedged  it  and  walled  it,  both  which  senses  may  be  reconciled  with  ety- 
mology, although  rejected  by  the  modern  lexicographers.  The  question  is 
of  no  exegetical  importance,  as  the  words  in  either  case  denote  appropriate 
and  necessary  acts  for  the  culture  or  protection  of  the  vineyard. 

V.  3.  Having  described  the  advantageous  situation,  soil,  and  culture  of 
the  vineyard,  and  its  failure  to  produce  good  fruit,  he  submits  the  case  to 
the  decision  of  his  hearers.  And  now,  not  merely  in  a  temporal  but  a  logical 
sense,  *  this  being  the  case,'  oh  inhabitant  of  Jerusalem  and  man  of  Judah, 
the  singular  form  adding  greatly  to  the  individuality  and  life  of  the  expres- 
sion, judge  I  pray  you,  pray  decide  or  act  as  arbiters,  between  me  and  my  vine- 
yard.— To  suppose,  with  Calvin  and  others,  that  the  people  are  here  called 
upon  directly  to  condemn  themselves  because  their  guilt  was  so  apparent,  is  to 
mar  the  beauty  of  the  parable  by  a  premature  application  of  its  figures.  They 
are  rather  called  upon  to  judge  between  a  stranger  and  his  vineyard,  simply  as 
such,  unaware  that  they  are  thereby  passing  judgment  on  themselves.  The 
meaning  and  design  of  the  appeal  are  perfectly  illustrated  by  that  which  Christ 
makes  (Matt.  21:  40)  in  a  parable  analogous  to  this  and  founded  on  it.  There 
as  here  the  audience  are  called  upon  to  judge  in  a  case  which  they  regard  as 
foreign  to  their  own,  if  not  fictitious,  and  it  is  only  after  their  decision  that 
they  are  made  to  see  its  bearing  on  themselves.  So  too  in  Nathan's  parable 
to  David  (2  Sam.  12  :  1),  it  was  not  till  "  David's  anger  was  greatly  kin- 

5 


66  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


died  against  the  man,"  i.  e.  the  stranger  of  whom  he  understood  the  Prophet 
to  be  speaking,  that  "  Nathan  said  to  David,  Thou  art  the  man."  A  dis- 
regard of  these  analogies  impairs  both  the  moral  force  and  the  poetical 
unity  and  beauty  of  the  apologue.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the 
attempt  made  by  the  Chaldee  Paraphrast,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  and  most 
recently  by  Umbreit,  to  put  a  specific  figurative  sense  on  each  part  of  the 
parable,  the  wall,  the  tower,  the  hedge,  etc.  which  is  not  more  reasonable 
here  than  it  would  be  in  explaining  Esop's  fables.  The  parable,  as  a  whole, 
corresponds  to  its  subject  as  a  whole,  but  all  the  particulars  included  in  the 
one  are  not  separately  intended  to  denote  particulars  included  in  the  other. 
A  lion  may  be  a  striking  emblem  of  a  hero  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
mane,  claws,  etc.  of  the  beast  must  all  be  significant  of  something  in  the 
man.     Nay,   they  cannot   even   be^ypposed   to   be   so,   without   sensibly 


y^f 


detracting  from  the  force  and  beauty^F  the  image  as  a  whole. 

V.  4.  This  verse  shows  that  the  parable  is  not  yet  complete,  and  that 
its  application  would  be  premature.  Having  called  upon  the  Jews  to  act  as 
umpires,  he  now  submits  a  specific  question  for  their  arbitration.  What  to 
do  more  (i.  e.  what  more  is  there  to  be  done)  to  my  vineyard  and  I  have  not 
(or  in  the  English  idiom,  that  I  have  not)  done  in  it  (not  only  to  or  for  but 
in  it,  with  reference  to  the  place  as  well  as  the  object  of  the  action)  1  Why 
did  I  wait  for  it  to  bear  grapes  and  it  bore  wild  grapes  1 — Calvin  and 
Gesenius  supply  was  instead  of  is  in  the  first  clause,  what  was  there  to  do 
more,  i.  e.  what  more  was  there  to  be  done,  or  was  I  bound  to  do  ?  But 
this,  though  grammatically  unexceptionable,  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the 
connexion  between  this  verse  and  the  next,  as  a  question  and  answer.  Still 
less  exact  is  the  English  Version  (followed  by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Hender- 
son), what  more  could  have  been  donel  The  question  whether  God  had 
done  all  that  he  could  for  the  Jews,  when  the  Scriptures  were  still  incom- 
plete and  Christ  had  not  yet  come,  however  easy  of  solution,  is  a  question 
here  irrelevant,  because  it  has  relation  not  to  something  in  the  text  but  to 
something  supplied  by  the  interpreter,  and  that  not  only  without  necessity 
but  in  violation  of  the  context ;  for  the  next  verse  is  not  an  answer  to  the 
question  what  God  could  have  done  but  what  he  shall  or  will  do.  The 
most  simple,  exact,  and  satisfactory  translation  of  this  first  clause  is  that 
given  by  Cocceius  (quid  faciendum  amplius  vinae  meae)  and  Ewald  (was 
ist  noch  meinem  Weinberge  zu  thun  ?) — In  the  last  clause  Calvin  under- 
stands the  owner  of  the  vineyard  to  express  surprise  at  his  own  unreasonable 
expectations.  Why  did  I  expect  it  (i.  e.  how  could  I  expect  it)  to  bear 
grapes  1  This  construction  not  only  raises  a  new  difficulty  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  words  to  God,  but  is  inconsistent  with  the  context,  the  whole 
drift  of  which  is  to  show  that  the  expectation  was  a  reasonable  one.    The  in- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V.  67 

terrogation  really  belongs  to  the  second  member  only,  the  first  being  merely 
introductory,  or  rather  to  the  whole  clause  as  a  complex  sentence.  '  Why, 
when  I  waited  for  it  to  bear  grapes,  did  it  bear  wild  grapes  ?'  As  other 
examples  of  the  same  construction,  Knobel  refers  to  ch.  12:  1.  50:  2,  and 
to  Job  2:  10.  4:  2.3:  11. 

V.  5.  He  now  proceeds  to  answer  his  own  question,  in  a  tone  of  pun- 
gent irony,  almost  amounting  to  a  sarcasm.  The  reply  which  might  naturally 
have  been  looked  for  was  a  statement  of  some  new  care,  some  neglected 
precaution,  some  untried  mode  of  culture  ;  but  instead  of  this  he  threatens 
to  destroy  the  vineyard,  as  the  only  expedient  remaining.  The  rhetorical 
effect  of  this  sudden  turn  in  the  discourse  is  heightened  by  the  very  form  of 
the  last  clause,  in  which  the  simple  future,  as  the  natural  expression  of  a 
purpose,  is  exchanged  for  the  infinitive,  denoting  the  bare  action  without 
specification  of  person,  time,  or  number.  And  now  (since  you  cannot  tell) 
I  will  let  you  know  if  you  please  (or  let  me  tell  you)  what  I  am  doing  to 
.  my  vineyard  (i.  e.  according  to  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  participle,  what  I 
am  about  to  do,  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  proximate  futurity),  remove  its  hedge 
and  it  shall  become  a  pasture  (literally,  a  consuming,  but  with  special  refer- 
ence to  cattle),  break  down  its  wall,  and  it  shall  become  a  trampling-place 
(i.  e.  it  shall  be  overrun  and  trampled  down). — Remove  and  break  are  not 
imperatives  but  infinitives,  equivalent  in  meaning  to  I  will  remove  and  break, 
but  more  concise  and  rapid  in  expression.  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  suppose 
an  ellipsis  of  the  finite  verb  after  the  infinitive,  '  removing  I  will  remove/ 
■  breaking  down  I  will  break  down.'  This  construction,  in  its  full  form,  is 
extremely  common  ;  but  against  the  supposition  of  its  ever  being  elliptically 
used,  there  is  this  objection,  that  the  repetition  is  designed  to  be  emphatic, 
an  effect  which  is  entirely  destroyed  by  the  omission.  Knobel  supposes 
that  the  thorn  hedge  and  stone  wall,  which  are  separately  mentioned  else- 
where, are  here  put  together  to  denote  a  more  than  ordinary  care  bestowed 
on  the  ideal  vineyard.  The  more  common  opinion  is  that  both  were  actually 
used  in  the  same  case  with  a  view  to  different  kinds  of  depredation. — Os*ie 
is  a  noun  of  place  formed  in  the  usual  manner  (Ges.  Heb.  Gr.  §  83.  14)  from 
the  verb  OoS,  which  occurs  in  ch.  1 :  12. — On  the  sense  become  (instead  of 
be  for)  vide  supra,  ch.  1  :  14,  21,  22,  31. 

♦ 

V.  6.  To  the  threatening  of  exposure  he  now  adds  that  of  desolation 
arising  from  neglect  of  culture,  while  the  last  clause  contains  a  beautiful 
though  almost  imperceptible  transition  from  the  apologue  to  the  reality.  By 
adding  to  the  other  threats,  which  any  human  vine-dresser  might  have  rea- 
sonably uttered,  one  which  only  God  could  execute,  the  parable  at  one 
stroke  is  brought  to  a  conclusion,  and  the  mind   prepared  for  the  ensuing 


68  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


application.  And  I  place  it  (render  it)  a  desolation.  It  shall  not  be  pruned 
and  it  shall  not  be  dressed,  and  there  shall  come  up  thorns  and  briers.  And 
I  will  lay  my  commands  upon  the  clouds  from  raining  rain  upon  it,  i.  e.  that 
they  rain  no  rain  upon  it.  The  addition  of  the  noun  rain  is  emphatic  and 
equivalent  to  any  rain  at  all. — The  English  Version  lay  waste  is  perhaps 
too  strong  for  the  original  expression,  which  rather  signifies  the  letting  it  run 
to  waste  by  mere  exposure  and  neglect. — The  older  versions  take  trf*  in 
the  sense  of  digging  (Sept.  Vulg.  Luther,  Calv.),  but  the  latest  writers 
prefer  that  of  dressing,  arranging,  putting  in  order. — Gesenius  and  Ewald 
follow  Cocceius  in  referring  f&9  to  the  vineyard  as  its  subject ;  it  shall 
come  up  thorns  and  briers,  as  the  eye  is  said  to  run  down  water  (Lam.  3 : 
48),  and  a  land  to  flow  milk  and  honey  (Exod.  3:8).  The  construction, 
though  undoubtedly  good  Hebrew,  is  not  so  obvious  as  the  old  and  common 
one.  To  command  from  or  away  from  is  to  deter  from  any  act  by  a  com- 
mand, in  other  words  to  forbid  or  to  command  not  to  do  the  thing  in  question. 
In  this  sense  only  can  the  preposition  from  be  said  to  have  a  negative  meaning. 

V.  7.    The  startling  menace  at  the  close  of  the  sixth   verse  would 
naturally   prompt    the    question,    Who  is   this  that    assumes   power  over 
clouds  and  rain,  and  what  is  the  vineyard  which  he  thus  denounces  ?    To 
this  tacit  question  we  have  here  the  answer.     As  if  he  had  said,  do  not 
wonder  that  the  owner  of  the  vineyard*  should  thus  speak,  for  the  vine- 
yard of  Jehovah  of  Hosts  is  the  House  of  Israel,  the  church,  considered 
as  a  whole,  and  the  man  of  Judah  is  the  plant  of  his  pleasures,  or  his 
favourite  plant.      And   he    waited  for  judgment,  practical  justice,  as  in 
ch.  1.:  17,  and  behold  bloodshed,  for  righteousness  and  behold  a  cry,  either 
-outcry   and    disturbance,  or  more   specifically   the  cry  of  the  oppressed, 
which  last  is  more   agreeable  to  usage,  and  at  the  same  time  more  poetical 
and   graphic. — The    ns  at    the   beginning   has   been    variously  rendered 
but   (Lu.  Ges.    Hendew.  Umbr.),  to  wit  (Hitz.),  certainly  (Calvin),  etc. 
But  the  true  connexion  of  the  verse  with  that  before  it  not  only  admits  but 
requires  the  strict  sense,  for,  because,  as  given  in  the  ancient  versions,  and 
retained  by   Cocceius,  Ewald,  and  Knobel. — J.  D.  Michaelis  and  all  the 
later  Germans  follow  Pagninus  and  Montanus  in  translating  5M3  plantation. 
But  the  word  is  unambiguously  used  in  that  sense  nowhere  else,  and  it  does 
not  agree  well  with  the  singular  term  man.     It  is  true  that  plant  and  man 
may  be  put  for  a  collection  of  plants  and  men,  but  this  should  not  affect  the 
strict  translation  of  the  sentence. — The  paronomasia  or  designed  correspond- 
ence in  the  form  and  sound  of  the  parallel  expressions  in  the  last  clause  has 
"been  copied  by  Augusti,  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Knobel.     But,  as 
Hendewerk  has  well  observed,  such  imitations  can  even  approximate  to  the 
form  of  the  original,  only  by  departing  more  or  less  from  the  strict  sense  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V.  69 

particular  expressions,  a  loss  which  can  hardly  be  considered  as  made 
good  by  the  mem  assonance  of  such  combinations  as  GerechiigJceit  and 
Schlechtigkeit,  Begl'uckung  and  Bedruckung,  Milde  and  Unbilde. 

V.  8.  Here  begins  a  detailed  specification  of  the  sins  included  in  the 
general  expressions  of  v.  7.  We  have  first  two  woes  pronounced  against  as 
many  sins,  each  followed  by  a  threatening  of  appropriate  punishment,  and 
a  general  threatening  which  applies  to  both,  vs.  8-17.  The  first  sin  thus 
denounced  is  that  of  ambitious  and  avaricious  grasping  after  property,  not 
merely  in  opposition  to  the  peculiar  institutions  of  the  law,  but  to  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  morals,  connected  as  it  always  is  with  a  neglect  of  char- 
itable duties  and  a  willingness  to  sacrifice  the  good  of  others.  The  verse 
before  us  may  be  understood,  however,  as  descriptive  rather  of  the  tendency 
and  aim  of  this  ambitious  grasping,  than  of  its  actual  effects.  Woe  to  the 
joiners  of  house  with  house,  or  those  making  house  touch  house,  field  to 
field  they  bring  together,  literally,  cause  them  to  approach,  even  to  a  failure 
(or  defect)  of  place,  i.  e.  until  there  is  no  room  left,  and  ye,  by  a  sudden 
apostrophe  addressing  those  of  whom  he  had  been  speaking,  are  made  (or 
left)  to  dwell  by  yourselves  in  the  midst  of  the  land,  owning  all  from  the 
centre  to  the  circumference,  or  simply  within  its  bounds,  within  it.  The 
translation  earth  is  equally  agreeable  to  usage,  and  expresses  still  more 
strongly  the  extent  of  their  desires ;  but  land  is  more  natural  and  preferred 
by  almost  all  interpreters.  Ewald  regards  ^in  as  a  simple  exclamation  (O 
die  Haus  reihen  an  Haus  !)  But  this  translation  is  inadequate,  as  an  ex- 
pression of  denunciation  is  required  by  the  context. 

V.  9.  The  inordinate  desire  of  lands  and  houses  shall  be  punished  with 
the  loss  of  them,  vs.  9,  1 0.  And  first,  he  threatens  that  the  valuable  houses 
which  they  coveted,  and  gained  by  fraud  or  violence,  shall  one  day  be  left 
empty,  an  event  implying  the  death,  captivity,  or  degradation  of  their  own- 
ers. In  my  ears  Jehovah  of  Hosts  is  saying,  as  if  his  voice  were  still  ring- 
ing in  the  Prophet's  ears,  of  a  truth  (literally,  if  not,  being  part  of  an  old 
formula  of  swearing,  '  may  it  be  so  and  so  if,'  etc  ;  so  that  the  negative 
form  conveys  the  strongest  affirmation,  surely,  certainly)^many  houses  shall 
become  a  desolation,  great  and  good,  for  want  of  an  inhabitant. — The  Sep- 
tuagint  and  Vulgate,  followed  by  Luther,  Calvin  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  make 
in  my  ears  the  words  of  God  himself,  as  if  he  had  said  (  these  things  are  in  * 
my  ears,'  or  ■  it  (the  cry,  v.  7)  is  in  my  ears,  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts.'  But 
most  modern  writers  follow  the  Targum  and  Peshito  in  construing  thi> 
clause  according  to  the  analogy  of  ch.  22 :  14  ('  in  my  ears  it  was  revealed  b) 
Jehovah  of  Hosts,'  or  'Jehovah  of  Hosts  revealed  himself.') — The  common 
version,  shall  be  desolate,  does  not  convey  the  whole  idea,  which  is  that  of  be- 


70  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 

coming,  being  changed  into  (vide  supra,  v.  6),  and  is  so  rendered  in  most  ver- 
sions.— The  sense  usually  given  to  d**a1b  is  the  specific  one  of  fair  or  beautiful 
(Henderson,  fine ;  Barnes,  splendid).  But  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  take  it  more 
correctly  in  the  general  sense  of  good,  including  the  ideas  of  profit  and  conve- 
nience, as  well  as  that  of  elegance  or  beauty. — By  most  interpreters  "psta  in  the 
last  clause  is  regarded  as  a  synonyme  or  at  most  as  an  intensive  form  of  "ps, 
f  wholly  without  inhabitant.'  But  the  causative  meaning,  '  for  the  want  of,' 
'  from  the  absence  of,'  "p$  being  properly  a  noun,  affords  a  better  sense  here, 
as  explaining  how  or  why  the  houses  should  be  desolate,  and  may  be  justi- 
fied by  the  analogy  of  Jer.  19:  1 1.  (J.  D.  Michaelis,  '  because  there  will 
be  no  one  to  inhabit  them.)  Clericus,  Vitringa  and  Hendewerk  explain  it 
to  mean  so  that  there  shall  not  be,  but  without  authority  from  usage. — Hen- 
derson's version  of  the  foregoing  words,  the  numerous  houses,  the  large  and 
fine  ones,  and  that  of  Gesenius  from  which  it  is  derived,  seem  to  lay  too 
much  stress  upon  the  adjectives. — On  the  form  if  not,  compare  ch.  14  :  24. 
Deut.  1:  35.  Ps.  131:  2. 

V.  10.  As  the  sin  related  both  to  lands  and  houses,  so  both  are  men- 
tioned in  denouncing  punishment.  The  desolation  of  the  houses  was  in  fact 
to  arise  from  the  unproductiveness  of  the  lands.  Ruinous  failure  of  crops^, 
and  a  near  approach  to  absolute  sterility  are  threatened  as  a  condign  punish- 
ment of  those  who  added  field  to  field  and  house  to  house.  The  meaning 
of  this  verse  depends  not  on  the  absolute  value  of  the  measures  men- 
tioned, but  on  their  proportions.  The  last  clause  threatens  that  the  seed 
sown,  instead  of  being  multiplied,  should  be  reduced  nine-tenths  ;  and  a  sim- 
ilar idea  is  no  doubt  expressed  by  the  analogous  terms  of  the  preceding 
clause.  For  ten  acres  (literally  yokes,  like  the  Latin  jugerum  from  jugum) 
of  vineyard  shall  make  (produce)  one  bath,  a  liquid  measure  here  put  for  a 
very  small  quantity  of  wine  to  be  yielded  by  so  large  a  quantity  of  land,  and 
the  seed  of  a  homer,  i.  e.  seed  to  the  amount  of  a  homer,  or  in  our  idiom,  a 
homer  of  seed,  shall  produce  an  ephah,  a  dry  measure  equal  to  the  liquid 
bath,  and  constituting  one  tenth  of  a  homer,  as  we  learn  from  Ezek.  45 :  11 
-14.  The  English  Version,  followed  by  Lowth,  translates  *3  yea,  while 
Clericus  and  Ges^iius  omit  it  altogether.  But  the  particle  is  necessary, 
in  its  usual  sense,  to  connect  this  verse  with  the  prediction  in  v.  9,  of  which 
it  gives  the  ground  or  reason. 

V.  .11.  The  second  woe  is  uttered  against  drunkenness  and  heartless 
dissipation,  with  its  usual  accompaniment  of  inattention  to  God's  providen- 
tial dealings,  and  is  connected  with  captivity,  hunger,  thirst,  general  mor- 
tality, as  its  appropriate  punishment,  vs.  11-14.  The  description  of  the 
sin  is  contained  in  vs.  11,  12,  and  first  that  of  drunkenness,  considered  not 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   V.  71 


as  an  occasional  excess,  but  as  a  daily  business,  diligently  prosecuted  with 
a  devotion  such  as  would  ensure  success  in  any  laudable  or  lawful  occupa- 
tion. Woe  to  those  rising  early  in  the  morning  to  pursue  strong  drink  (lit- 
erally, strong  drink  they  pursue),  delaying  in  the  twilight  (until)  wine  in- 
flames them. — That  :::  does  not  here  mean  the  morning  twilight,  but  as 
usual  the  dusk  of  evening  (Prov.  7 :  9),  is  plain  from  the  preposition  in  pre- 
fixed. The  idea  of  continuing  till  night  (Vulg.  Calv.  Eng.  Vs.)  is  rather 
implied  than  expressed.  The  allusion  is  not  so  much  to  the  disgracefulness 
of  drinking  in  the  morning  (Knobel,  Henderson)  as  to  their  spending  day 
and  night  in  drinking,  rising  early  and  sitting  up  late.  Before  wine  in  the 
last  clause  the  older  writers  supply  and  (Pesh.  J.  D.  Mich.),  while  (Calv. 
Vitr.),  or  so  that  (Vulg.  Lu.  Cocc.  Low.  Ros.).  Gesenius  avoids  this  by  a 
paraphrase  ('  sit  late  at  night  by  wine  inflamed '),  and  Ewald  treats  the  par- 
ticiples in  both  clauses  as  adverbial  expressions  used  to  qualify  the  finite 
verb  ('  they  who  early  in  the  morning  run  after  strong  drink,  late  in 
the  evening  are  inflamed  by  wine').  The  precise  construction  of  the 
Hebrew  may  be  thus  retained — '  those  who,  rising  early  in  the  morning, 
pursue  strong  drink  ;  those  whom,  delaying  in  the  evening,  wine  inflames.' 
The  same  application  of  Of»*ing«  occurs  in  the  parallel  passage,  Prov.  23 : 
29-32.  Strong  drink  differs  from  wine  only  by  including  all  intoxicating 
liquors,  and  is  here  used  simply  as  a  parallel  expression. — The  waste  of 
time  here  censured  is  professed  and  gloried  in  by  the  convivial  poets  of 
heathen  antiquity.     Thus  Horace  says  of  himself, 

Est  qui  nee  veteris  pocula  Massici, 
Nee  partem  solido  demere  de  die, 
Spernit. 

The  nocturnal  part  of  the  prophetic  picture  is  still  more  exactly  copied 
by  Propertius, 

Sic  noctem  patera,  sic  ducam  carmine,  donee 
Injiciat  radios  in  mea  vina  dies. 

Illustrative  parallels  from  modern  poetry  are  needless   though  abundant. 

V.  12.  This  verse  completes  the  picture  begun  in  v.  11,  by  adding  riot- 
ous mirth  to  drunkenness.  To  express  this  idea,  music  is  joined  with  wine 
as  the  source  of  their  social  enjoyment,  but  the  last  clause  shows  that  it  is 
not  mere  gayety,  nor  even  the  excess  of  it,  that  is  here  intended  to  be  prom- 
inently set  forth,  but  the  folly  and  wickedness  of  merriment  at  certain  times 
and  under  certain  circumstances,  especially  amidst  impending  judgments. 
The  general  idea  of  music  is  expressed  by  naming  several  instruments  be- 
longing to  the  three  great  classes  of  stringed,  wind,  and  pulsatile.  The 
precise  form  and  use  of  each  cannot  be  ascertained,  and  is  of  no  importance 
to  the   meaning  of  the   sentence.     And  the   harp  and  the  viol,  the  tabret 


72 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


(tambourine  or  small  drum)  and  the  pipe  (or  flute),  and  wine  (compose) 
their  feasts ;  and  the  work  of  Jehovah  they  will  not  look  at  (or  regard),  and 
the  operation  of  his  hands  they  have  not  seen,  and  do  not  see. — The  Targum 
supplies  a  preposition  before  the  first  nouns  and  makes  feasts  the  subject  of 
the  sentence :  c  With  harp  and  viol,  tabret  and  pipe,  and  wine,  are  their 
feasts.'  The  Septuagint  and  Peshito,  '  with  harp,  etc.,  they  drink  their 
wine/  The  Vulgate  supplies  the  preposition  before  feasts,  and  makes  the 
other  nouns  the  subject — '  Harp  and  viol,  &ic,  are  in  your  feasts.'  Gesenius 
gives  the  same  sense,  but  supposes  crpntsiJTa  to  be  used  adverbially  as  in  Ara- 
bic. Cocceius,  Ewald,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Henderson,  make 
it  the  nominative  after  the  substantive  verb  understood.  c  Harp  and  viol, 
tabret  and  pipe,  and  wine,  are  their  feasts,'  in  these  consist  their  social  enter- 
tainments. Umbreit  and  Knobel  separate  the  last  two  words  from  what 
precedes  and  read,  c  there  is  harp  and  viol,  tabret  and  pipe,  and  wine  is  their 
drink.'  The  general  sense  is  not  at  all  affected  by  these  questions  of  con- 
struction. According  to  Ewald  (Heb.  Gr.  <§>  379),  with  whom  Hitzig  and 
Umbreit  agree,  on^niso  is  not  a  plural,  but  the  form  which  nb  derivatives 
take,  even  in  the  singular,  before  certain  suffixes.  The  work  of  Jehovah 
here  alluded  to  is  not  that  of  creation  (Umbreit)  nor  the  law  (Abarbenel) 
nor  the  design  and  use  of  providential  favours  (Calvin),  but  his  dealings  with 
the  people  in  the  way  of  judgment.  Compare  ch.  10:  12.  22:  11.  28:  21. 
Hab.  1:5.  3:2.  Ps.  64 :  9,  and  especially  Ps.  28  :  5,  from  which  the  ex- 
pressions here  used  seem  to  be  taken. 

V.  13.  Here  again  the  sin  is  directly  followed  by  its  condign  punishment, 
drunkenness  and  disregard  of  providential  warnings  by  captivity,  hunger, 
thirst,  and  general  mortality,  vs.  13,  14.  But  instead  of  the  language  of 
direct  prediction  (as  in  vs.  9,  1 0)  the  Prophet  here  employs  that  of  descrip- 
tion. Therefore  (for  the  reasons  given  in  the  two  preceding  verses)  my 
people  has  gone  into  exile  (or  captivity)  for  want  of  knowledge  (a  wilful 
ignorance  of  God's  providential  work  and  operation),  and  their  glory  (lite- 
rally his,  referring  to  the  singular  noun  people)  are  men  of  hunger  (i.  e.  fam- 
ished), and  their  multitude  dry  (parched)  with  thirst.  J.  D.  Michaelis  under- 
stands captivity  as  a  figurative  term  for  misery,  as  in  Job  42 :  10.  Ps.  14 :  7. 
But  the  context  seems  to  require  the  literal  interpretation. — Luther,  Gesenius, 
and  Hendewerk  take  nba  as  a  future,  which  is  not  to  be  assumed  without 

T  T  ' 

necessity.  Most  recent  writers  evade  the  difficulty  by  rendering  it  in  the 
present  tense.  The  only  natural  construction  is  the  old  one  (Sept.  Vulg. 
Calv.  Vitr.  Barnes)  which  gives  the  preterite  its  proper  meaning,  and  either 
supposes  the  future  to  be  here,  as  often  elsewhere,  spoken  of  as  if  already 
past  (J.  H.  Michaelis),  or  understands  the  verse  as  referring  to  judgments 
which  had  been  already  suffered,  not  at  at  one  time  merely,  but  on  various 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V.  73 

occasions,  as  if  he  had  said  '  this  is  the  true  cause  of  the  captivity,  the  hunger 
and  the  thirst,  to  which  Israel  has  so  often  been  subjected. '  The  allusion 
cannot  be  to  the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes,  who  are  never  called  God's 
people. — Because  he  knoweth  not,  they  know  not,  and  1  knew  not,  are  phra- 
ses sometimes  used  where  we  say  unawares  or  suddenly  (e.  g.  Ps.  35 :  8. 
Sol.  Song  6:  12.  Job  9:5),  Luther  so  understands.  nsv^sra  here,  in  which 
he  is  followed  by  J.  D.  Mich.  Ros.  Ges.  Ew.  Hendew.  Henders.  Hitz. 
Umbr.  But  as  this  phrase  is  not  so  used  elsewhere,  and  in  Hos.  4  :  6  means 
for  ivant  of  knowledge,  as  the  cause  of  ruin,  this  exact  and  ancient  version 
is  correctly  retained  by  Lowth,  DeWette,  Maurer  and  Knobel. — By  Trias 
and  itf&n  some  understand  the  same  class  of  persons,  viz.  the  rich  and  noble 
(Vitr.  Ges.  Ew.).  Others  suppose  an  antithesis  between  the  nobility  and  the 
populace  (Luther,  Lowth,  Umbreit).  Either  of  these  verbal  explanations  is 
consistent  with  the  import  of  the  threatening  as  explained  already  ;  but  the 
most  probable  interpretation  seems  to  be  that  of  Knobel,  who  supposes  the 
multitude  or  mass  of  the  inhabitants,  without  regard  to  rank,  to  be  called  the 
flower  or  glory  of  the  country,  as  Goldsmith  calls  the  peasantry  "  a  nation's 
pride."  For  ■««  men,  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Lowth  read  *tvq  dead,  on  the 
authority  of  the  Septuagint,  Targum,  Peshito,  and  Luther.  Hitzig  and  Ewald 
read  *$q  or  fits:  exhausted,  after  the  analogy  of  Deut.  32 :  24.  But  the 
common  reading  yields  a  perfectly  good  sense,  not  however  that  of  nobles  in 
hunger  (Vitr.  nobiles  fame)  but  simply  that  of  hungry  men,  or  starvelings 
as  Henderson  expresses  it. 

V.  14.  As  the  effect  of  the  preceding  judgments,  the  Prophet  now 
describes  a  general  mortality,  under  the  figure  of  the  grave,  as  a  ravenous 
monster,  gaping  to  devour  the  thoughtless  revellers.  Here,  as  in  v.  13,  he 
seems  to  be  speaking  of  events  already  past.  Therefore  (because  famine 
and  captivity  have  thus  prevailed)  the  grave  has  enlarged  herself  and  opened 
her  mouth  without  measure,  and  down  goes  her  pomp  and  her  noise  and  her 
crowd  and  he  that  rejoices  in  her. — It  is  equally  correct,  although  not 
perhaps  so  natural,  to  regard  "(3"^?  as  a  correlative  of  "ph  in  v.  13,  both 
relating  to  the  sins  described  in  v.  12,  as  the  occasion  of  the  strokes  in  ques- 
tion.— The  noun  VixttJ  is  derived  by  Gesenius  from  a  verb  ^ati,  which  he 
supposes  to  have  been  synonymous  with  Vsir  to  be  hollow.  Hence  the  noun 
would  mean  an  excavation  and  in  particular  a  grave,  which  same  sense 
is  deduced  by  the  older  writers  from  bxd  to  ask  or  crave  (Prov.  30:  15, 
16.  Hab.  2:5).  The  sense  of  the  term  here  corresponds  almost  exactly 
to  the  poetical  use  of  grave  in  English,  as  denoting  one  great  receptacle, 
to  which  the  graves  of  individuals  may  be  conceived  as  inlets.  It  is  thus 
that  we  speak  of  a  voice  from  the  grave,  without  referring  to  the  burial- 
place  of  any  individual.     The  German  Holle  (originally  Hohle,  hollow)  and 


"74  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 

the  old  English  Hell,  correspond  almost  exactly  to  the  Hebrew  word ;  but 
the  idea  of  a  place  of  torment,  which  is  included  in  their  present  meaning,  is 
derived  from  the  peculiar  use  of  adrjg  (the  nearest  Greek  equivalent)  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  and  belongs  to  the  Hebrew  word  only  by  implication 
and  in  certain  connexions.  It  seems  to  be  a  needless  violation  of  good  taste 
to  introduce  the  Greek  word  Hades  (Lowth),  especially  if  treated  as  a  femi- 
nine noun  (Barnes).  For  additional  remarks  upon  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew 
word,  see  ch.  1 4  :  9. — As  the  same  phrase  here  used  is  applied  by  Habakkuk 
(2 :  5)  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  "  who  enlarged  his  desire  as  the  grave,  and  was 
like  death,  and  could  not  be  satisfied,"  most  of  the  modern  writers  take  ttSfiS 
here  in  the  sense  of  appetite,  either  strictly  (Ewald)  or  as  a  figure  for  the 
craving  maw  of  a  devouring  monster  (Gesenius).  Grotius  takes  it's  a  as  a 
reflexive  pronoun,  for  which  there  is  no  distinct  form  in  Hebrew,  and  by  the 
grave's  enlarging  itself  understands  a  poetical  description  of  an  extraordinary 
number  of  dead  bodies. — The  English  Version,  following  the  Vulgate,  con- 
nects TT*  with  RS,  which  is  forbidden  by  the  accents  and  by  the  usage  of  the 
verb  and  preposition. — As  the  suffix  in  wsfia  must  refer  to  biswj,  the  simplest 
construction  is  that  of  Hitzig,  who  refers  the  other  pronouns  to  the  same 
antecedent,  her  pomp  (i.  e.  the  grave's),  her  crowd,  her  noise,  so  called 
because  they  were  to  have  an  end  in  her,  as  men  doomed  to  die  are  called 
men  of  death,  2  Sam.  19:  29.  By  tna  \\%  he  understands  the  man  exulting 
over  her,  laughing  at  the  grave  and  setting  death  at  defiance  (compare  ch. 
28  :  15).  This  construction  is  approved  by  Hendewerk,  but  rejected  by  the 
other  recent  interpreters  for  the  old  one,  which  refers  the  pronouns  to 
Jerusalem  or  Zion  understood. — The  words  rendered  pomp,  crowd,  and 
noise,  are  as  variously  explained  as  those  in  v.  13  ;  but  all  agree  that  they 
refer  to  the  voluptuous  revellers  described  in  v.  12. 

V.  15.  To  the  description  of  the  punishment  the  Prophet  now  adds  that 
of  its  design  and  ultimate  effect,  to  wit,  the  humiliation  of  man  and  the 
exaltation  of  God,  vs.  15,  16.  The  former  is  here  foretold  in  terms  almost 
identical  with  those  of  ch.  2  :  9.  And  man  is  brought  low  and  man  is  cast 
down  and  the  eyes  of  the  lofty  (or  haughty)  are  cast  down. — Most  of  the 
older  writers  render  all  the  verbs  of  this  verse  in  the  future,  but  Junius,  Coc- 
ceius,  and  the  moderns  in  the  present.  The  Vav  conversive  probably  denotes 
nothing  more  than  the  dependence  of  the  first  two  verbs  on  those  of  the 
preceding  verse,  as  expressive  of  a  subsequent  and  consequent  event.  If  so, 
the  sense,  though  not  the  form,  of  the  original  is  well  expressed  by  Luther, 
so  that  every  man  is  humbled,  he.  That  the  verse  at  least  includes  a  refer- 
ence to  the  future,  is  ^elear  from  the  future  form  of  the  third  verb ;  and  that 
this  is  not  in  contrast  with  the  past  time  of  the  first  clause,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  resumption  of  the  latter  form  in  v.  16.     In  a  case  so  dubious,  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V.  75 

present  form  maybe  preferred,  as  really  including  both  the  others,  or  at 
least  consistent  with  them. — On  the  use  of  i^x  and  d*ix,  see  ch.  2  :  9.  Lu- 
ther, who  there  supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  terms,  here  translates 
them  both  by  every  man.  The  only  difference  between  the  two  interpreta- 
tions, with  respect  to  the  import  of  the  Prophet's  declaration,  is  that  in  the 
one  case  he  distinctly  mentions  two  great  classes  as  the  subjects  of  humilia- 
tion, while  in  the  other  he  confounds  them  all  together.  In  either  case  the 
sense  is  that  the  pride  of  man  shall  be  brought  low.  "  Let  a  man  be  ever 
so  high,  death  will  bring  him  low  ;  ever  so  mean,  death  will  bring  him 
lower."  (Matthew  Henry.) 

V.  16.  The  same  events  which  humble  man  exalt  God,  not  by  contrast 
merely,  but  by  the  positive  exhibition  of  his  attributes.  And  Jehovah  of 
Hosts  is  exalted  in  judgment  (in  the  exercise  of  justice),  and  the  Mighty,  the 
Holy  One,  is  sanctified  (shown  to  be  a  Holy  God)  in  righteousness. — Most 
of  the  earlier  and  later  writers  follow  the  Vulgate  in  rendering  niii^n  ^>xri 
simply  the  Holy  God.  But  the  accentuation  seems  to  indicate  a  more 
emphatic  sense.  The  English  version  follows  Calvin,  and  reads  God  who  is 
holy.  Lowth  follows  Luther,  God  the  Holy  One.  But  as  bx  is  itself  a 
significant  title,  it  seems  best  to  regard  the  two  epithets  as  summing  up  the 
natural  and  moral  perfections  of  the  Deity.  So  Vitringa  (Deus  ille  fortis, 
sanctus  ille)  and  Junius  (Deus  sanctus  fortissimus). — Hitzig  gives  irips  a 
reflexive  meaning  (sanctifies  himself)  which,  although  admissible,  is  needless 
and  not  favoured  by  the  parallelism. — In  judgment  and  in  righteousness  are 
used  precisely  in  the  same  sense,  ch.  1  :  27.  With  respect  to  the  tense  of 
the  verbs,  see  the  foreo-oino;  verse. 

V.  17.  Having  paused,  as  it  were,  to  show  the  ultimate  effect  of  these 
judgments,  he  now  completes  the  description  of  the  judgments  themselves, 
by  predicting  the  conversion  of  the  lands  possessed  by  the  ungodly  Jews  into 
a  vast  pasture-ground,  occupied  only  by  the  flocks  of  wandering  shepherds 
from  the  neighbouring  deserts.  And  lambs  shall  feed  as  (in)  their  pasture, 
and  the  wastes  of  the  fat  ones  shall  sojourners  (temporary  occupants)  devour. 
The  explanation  of  this  verse  as  a  promise,  that  the  lambs  or  righteous  should 
succeed  to  the  possessions  of  the  fat  ones  or  wealthy  sinners  (Targ.  Jar. 
Kim.  Calv.  Jun.  Cocc.  Vitr.)  is  scarcely  consistent  with  the  context,  which 
contains  an  unbroken  series  of  threatenings.  The  modern  interpreters,  who 
follow  Aben  Ezra  in  making  this  a  threatening  likewise,  apply  it  either  figu- 
ratively to  the  subjection  of  the  Holy  Land  to  the  Gentiles  (Gill)  or  the 
entrance  of  the  poor  on  the  possessions  of  the  rich  (Hendewerk),  or  literally 
to  the  desolation  of  the  land  itself  (J.  D.  Mich.  Lowth,  &c). — Gesenius 
refers  the  last  clause  to  tillage,  and  supposes  it  to  mean  that  strangers  shall 


76 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


reap  the  crops  of  the  forsaken  lands ;  but  the  common  interpretation  is  more 
natural,  which  makes  both  clauses  have  respect  to  pasturage. — Most  writers 
make  D^a  a  synonyme  of  o**tt  strangers ;  but  Cocceius  treats  it  as  an  adjec- 
tive agreeing  with  Batons,  <  and  strange  lambs  shall  devour/  &c.     Hitzig 
construes  it  still  more  strictly  as  a  participle,  '  and  devour  wandering  the 
wastes/  &c.     But  the  verb  should  then  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense  of 
sojourning,  residing  for  a  time,  in  reference  either  to  the  shepherds  or  their 
sheep. — The  Vulgate  explains  Bf«m|  nirnn  to  mean  fat  wastes,  i.  e.  deserts 
become  fertile  (deserta  in  ubertatem  versa)  ;  the  French  version,  deserts 
where  the  flocks  grew  fat ;  Clericus,  still  more  strangely,  the  flocks   them- 
selves which  fed  in  the  desert,  and  should  therefore  be  devoured  by  strangers, 
while  the  lambs  were  led  as  usual  to  pasture  by  their  Babylonian  captors. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  takes  HfaPJlJ  in  the  sense  of  ruins,  here  put  for  that  which 
grows  among  them ;  but  the  word  no  doubt  means  waste  fields,  as  in  Jer. 
25:  11.  Ezek.  25:  13.     Hitzig  supposes  b"1^  to  denote  fat  sheep  or  rams, 
as  in  the  only  other  place  where  it  occurs  (Ps.  66  :  15)  ;  but  most  interpre- 
ters regard  it  as  a  figure  for  the  rich  and  prosperous,  like  ■piK-^itth  Ps.  22  : 
30  (compare  twyiiatfia  Ps.  78:  31). — The  phrase  0^^  has  been  variously 
explained  to  mean  as  it  was  said  to  them  (Targ.),  juxta  ductum  suum  i.  e. 
without  restraint  (J.  H.  Mich.  Lowth),  according  to  their  order  i.  e.  their 
usual    order   (Vulg.),    as    they  are    driven    (Aben    Ezra,  J.  D.  Mich.). 
But  the  modern  interpreters  take  "fito  here  and  Micah  2 :  12  in  the  sense  of 
pasture. — The  conjectural  emendation  of  the  text  by  changing  d'nji  into  fci^o 
(Cappellus,  Bauer)  or  d*hs  (Durell,  Seeker,  Lowth,  Ewald)  is  of  course 
superfluous. 

V.  18.  The  series  of  woes  is  now  resumed  and  continued  without  any 
interruption,  vs.  18-23.  Even  the  description  of  the  punishment,  instead 
of  being  added  directly  to  that  of  the  sin,  as  in  vs.  9  and  13,  is  postponed 
until  the  catalogue  of  sins  is  closed,  and  then  subjoined  in  a  general  form,  v. 
24.  This  verse  contains  the  third  woe,  having  reference  to  presumptuous 
sinners  who  defy  God's  judgments.  They  are  here  represented  not  as 
drawn  away  by  sin  (James  1  :  14),  but  as  laboriously  drawing  it  to  them  by 
soliciting  temptation,  drawing  it  out  by  obstinate  persistency  in  evil  and 
contempt  of  divine  threatenings.  Woe  to  the  drawers  of  iniquity  (those 
drawing,  those  who  draw  it)  with  cords  of  vanity,  and  sin  (a  parallel  expres- 
sion to  iniquity)  as  (or  as  with)  a  cart-rope,  i.  e.  a  strong  rope,  implying 
difficulty  and  exertion. — The  interpretation  which  supposes  iniquity  and  sin 
to  mean  calamity  and  punishment  (Menochius,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Hendewerk, 
Henderson),  although  it  seems  to  make  the  sentence  clearer,  impairs  its 
strength,  and  takes  the  words  in  an  unusual  and  doubtful  sense.  Knobel 
objects  that  men  cannot  be  said  to  draw  sin  with  cords  of  sin.     But  even 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   V.  77 


this  figure  is  perfectly  consistent  both  with  reason  and  experience.  Or 
vanity  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  falsehood  or  sophistical  reasoning  by 
which  men  persuade  themselves  to  sin  (Calv.  Vitr.  Cler.).  The  Targum, 
followed  by  Jarchi,  supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  beginnings  of  sin  and 
its  later  stages,  slight  cords  and  cart-ropes.  But  this  confounds  the  sin  itself 
with  the  instrument  by  which  they  draw  it ;  and  the  same  objection  lies 
against  the  Syriac  and  Vulgate  versions,  which  make  drawing  out,  protract- 
ing, the  primary  idea,  and  also  against  Houbigant's  and  Lowth's  interpreta- 
tion, which  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  process  of  rope-making.  Luther's 
idea  that  the  verse  relates  to  combination  among  wicked  men,  '  who  bind 
themselves  together'  to  do  mischief,  is  at  variance  with  the  usage  of  the 
Hebrew  verb. — The  true  interpretation  of  the  verse,  which  supposes  the  act 
described  to  be  that  of  laboriously  drawing  sin  to  one's  self,  perhaps  with 
the  accessory  idea  of  drawing  it  out  .by  perseverance,  is  substantially  given  by 
Kimchi,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and  Umbreit. — The  vari- 
ous readings,  hOT3  for  mnra  (Bib.  Soncin.,  14  MSS.),  'tana  for  *Vana  (1  MS., 
Sept.  Aq.  Sym.  Theod.),  and  nbis  for  fibs:?  (Olshausen,  Observ.  Crit.  p.  8., 
Henderson  ad  loc),  are  all  unnecessary  and  inferior  to  the  common  text. 

V.  19.  The  degree  of  their  presumption  and  depravity  is  now  evinced 
by  a  citation  of  their  language  with  respect  to  God's  threatened  judgments, 
an  ironical  expression  of  impatience  to  behold  them,  and  an  implied  refusal 
to  believe  without  experience.  The  sentence  is  continued  from  the  verse 
preceding,  and  further  describes  the  sinners  there  denounced,  as  the  ones 
saying  (those  who  say),  let  him  speed,  let  him  hasten  his  work  (his  provi- 
dential work,  as  in  v.  12),  that  we  may  see,  and  let  the  counsel  (providential 
plan  or  purpose)  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  (which,  in  the  mouth  of 
these  blasphemers,  seems  to  be  a  taunting  irony)  draw  nigh  and  come,  and 
we  will  know  (i.  e.  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom  and  the  parallel  expres- 
sion) that  we  may  know  w*hat  it  is,  or  that  it  is  a  real  purpose,  and  that  he 
is  able  to  accomplish  it.  (Compare  Jer.  17 :  15.  Amos  5 :  18.  6 :  13. 
Isai.  30:  10,  11.  28:  15.  2  Peter  3:  4.) — The  intransitive  construction  of 
the  first  clause,  '  let  him  speed,  let  his  work  make  haste '  (Hitzig,  Ewald, 
Umbreit),  may  be  justified  by  usage,  and  makes  the  clauses  more  exactly 
parallel ;  but  the  other  is  preferred,  by  almost  all  interpreters,  ancient  and 
modern. — Henderson  explains  this  verse  as  "  the  only  construction  which 
could  be  put  upon  the  conduct  of  the  wicked  Jews  ;"  but  the  reference 
seems  to  be  to  actual  expression  of  the  wish  in  words,  and  not  in  action 
merely. — For  the  form  ttaosn,  see  Gesenius,  Heb.  Gr.  §  48.  3. 

V.  20.  The  fourth  woe  is  against  those  who  subvert  moral  distinctions 
and  confound  good  and  evil,  an 'idea  expressed  first  in  literal  terms  and  then 


78  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 

by  two  obvious  and  intelligible  figures*  Woe  unto  the  (persons)  saying 
(those  who  say)  to  evil  good  and  to  good  evil,  (who  address  them  by  these 
titles  or  call  them  so),  putting  darkness  for  light  and  light  for  darkness, 
putting  bitter  for  sweet  and  sweet  for  bitter.  These  are  here  combined, 
not  merely  as  natural  opposites,  but  also  as  common  figures  for  truth  and 
falsehood,  right  and  wrong.  See  ch.  2 :  5.  Prov.  2 :  13.  Ec.  2 :  13.  James 
3:11.  A  kindred  figure  is  employed  by  Juvenal  (qui  nigrum  in  Candida 
vertunt.  Sat.  3:3).  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  apply  this  verse  particularly  to 
unrighteous  judges,  who  are  mentioned  in  v.  23  ;  but  a  more  general  sense 
is  here  required  by  the  context. 

V.  21.  Here,  as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  one  sin  follows  another  without 
any  intervening  description  of  punishment.  This  arrangement  may  imply  a 
very  intimate  connection  between  the  sins  thus  brought  into  juxtaposition. 
As  presumptuous  sin,  such  as  vs.  18,  19  describe,  implies  a  perversion  of  the 
moral  sense,  such  as  v.  20  describes,  so  the  latter  may  be  said  to  presuppose 
an  undue  reliance  upon  human  reason,  which  is  elsewhere  contrasted  with 
the  fear  of  God  (Prov.  3:7),  and  is  indeed  incompatible  with  it.  Woe  unto 
the  wise  in  their  eyes  (i.  e.  their  own  eyes,  which  cannot  be  otherwise  ex- 
pressed in  Hebrew)  and  before  their  own  faces  (in  their  own  sight  or  estima- 
tion) prudent,  intelligent,  a  synonyme  of  wise.  The  sin  reproved,  as  Calvin 
well  observes,  is  not  mere  frivolous  self-conceit,  but  that  delusive  estimate  of 
human  wisdom  (fallax  sapientiae  spectrum)  which  may  coexist  with  modesty 
of  manners  and  a  high  degree  of  real  intellectual  merit,  but  which  must  be 
abjured,  not  only  on  account  of  its  effects,  but  also  as  involving  the  worst 
form  of  pride. 

V.  22.  The  sixth  woe,  like  the  second,  is  directed  against  drunkards, 
but  with  special  reference  to  drunken  judges,  vs.  22,  23.  The  tone  of  this 
verse  is  sarcastic,  from  its  using  term's  which  commonly  express  not  only 
strength  but  courage  and  heroic  spirit,  in  application  to  exploits  of  drunken- 
ness. There  may  indeed  be  a  particular  allusion  to  a  species  of  fool-hardi- 
ness and  brutal  ambition  not  uncommon  in  our  own  times,  leading  men  to 
show  the  vigour  of  their  frames  by  mad  excess,  and  to  seek  eminence  in  this 
way  no  less  eagerly  than  superior  spirits  seek  true  glory.  Of  such  it  may 
indeed  be  said,  their  god  is  their  belly  and  they  glory  in  their  shame.  Woe 
to  the  mighty  men  or  heroes,  (who  are  heroes  only)  to  drink  wine,  and  men 
of  strength  to  mingle  strong  drink,  i.  e.  according  to  the  usual  interpreta- 
tion, to  mix  wine  with  spices,  thereby  making  it  more  stimulating  and 
exciting,  a  practice  spoken  of  by  Pliny  and  other  ancient  writers.  (See 
also  Sol.  Song  8  :  2.)  Hitzig  (with  whom  Hendewerk  agrees  on  this  point) 
denies  that  this  was  an  oriental  usage,  and  understands  the  Prophet  as  refer- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V.  19 

ling  to  the  mixture  of  wine  with  water.  But  see  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  p. 
808.  In  either  case  the  mixing  is  here  mentioned  only  as  a  customary  act 
in  the  offering  or  drinking  ofliquors,  just  as  making  tea  might  be  mentioned 
as  a  common  act  of  modern  hospitality,  whatever  part  of  the  preparatory 
process  the  phrase  may  properly  denote. 

V.  23.  The  absence  of  the  interjection  shows  that  this  is  a  continuation 
of  the  woe  begun  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  thus  explains  the  Prophet's 
recurrence  to  a  sin  which  he  had  denounced  already  (vs.  11,  12)  as  pro- 
ductive of  general  inconsideration,  but  which  he  now  describes  as  leading  to 
injustice,  and  therefore  as  a  vice  peculiarly  disgraceful  in  a  magistrate. 
The  effect  here  ascribed  to  drunkenness  is  not  merely  that  of  incapacitating 
judges  for  the  discharge  of  their  official  functions,  but  that  of  tempting  them 
to  make  a  trade  of  justice,  with  a  view  to  the  indulgence  of  this  appetite. 
Justifying  (i.  e.  acquitting,  clearing,  a  forensic  term)  the  guilty  (not  simply 
the  wicked  in  a  general  sense,  but  the  wrong-doer  in  a  judicial  sense)  for 
the  sake  (literally  as  the  result)  of  a  bribe,  and  the  righteousness  of  the  right- 
eous (i.  e.  the  right  of  the  innocent  or  injured  party,  or  his  character  as  such) 
they  will  take  from  him  (i.e.  they  do  and  will  do  so  still).  The  transition 
from  the  plural  to  the  singular  in  this  clause,  and  from  the  participle  to  the 
future,  are  familiar  idioms  of  Hebrew  syntax.  The  pronoun  at  the  end  may 
be  understood  either  collectively  or  distributively,  from  each  of  them,  (See 
Gesen.  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  143.  4.) 

V.  24.  To  the  series  of  sins  enumerated  in  the  six  preceding  verses 
there  is  now  added  a  general  description  of  their  punishment.  In  the  first 
clause,  the  Prophet  represents  the  divine  visitation,  with  its  sudden,  rapid, 
irresistible  effect,  by  the  familiar  figure  of  chaff  and  dry  grass  sinking  in  the 
flames.  In  the  second  clause  he  passes  from  simile  to  metaphor,  and  speaks 
of  the  people  as  a  tree  whose  root  is  rotten  and  its  growth  above  ground 
pulverized.  In  the  third,  he  drops  both  figures,  and  in  literal  expressions 
summarily  states  the  cause  of  their  destruction.  Therefore  (because  of  the 
abounding  of  these  sins)  as  a  tongue  of  fire  (i.  e.  a  flame,  so  called  from  its 
shape  and  motion,  Acts  2 :  3.  1  Kings  18:  38)  devours  chaff  (or  stubble). 
and  as  ignited  grass  falls  away,  their  root  shall  be  as  rottenness,  and  their 
blossom  as  fine  dust  shall  go  up  (i.  e.  be  taken  up  and  scattered  by  the 
wind).  For  they  have  rejected  the  law  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  and  the  word 
(the  revealed  will)  of  the  Holy  one  of  Israel  they  have  treated  with  con- 
tempt.— Montanus  explains  no-^  as  a  transitive  verb  (glumam  debilitat), 
and  the  English  Version  (followed  by  Lowth  and  August!)  goes  still  further 
by  giving  it  the  sense  of  consuming,  which  it  never  has.  Calvin,  followed 
by  Vitringa,  makes  it  passive  and  renders  !"cnb  as  an  ablative   (a  flarama 


80  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


dissolvitur).  Gesenius,  in  his  version,  gives  the  verb  its  usual  intransitive  or 
neuter  sense,  but  supplies  a  preposition  before  the  noun,  or  takes  it  as  a  noun 
of  place  (in  der  Flamme  zusammensinkt).  In  his  Lexicon,  however,  he 
adopts  the  construction  first  proposed  by  Cocceius,  which  supposes  the  two 
words  to  be  in  regimen,  and  to  mean  literally  grass  of  flame  i.  e.  flaming  or 
ignited  grass. — J.  D.  Michaelis  endeavours  to  identify  the  figures  of  the 
first  and  second  clause  by  reading  ashes  instead  of  rottenness ;  but  such 
transitions  are  too  common  to  excite  surprise. — The  Septuagint  renders  rn* 
av&og,  the  Vulgate  germen,  and  others  variously  bud,  blossom,  flower,  etc. 
It  seems  to  be  intended  to  express  whatever  could  here  be  put  in  antithesis 
to  root,  as  in  the  proverbial  phrase  root  and  branch,  denoting  the  whole  tree, 
above  ground  and  below. — For  the  true  sense  of  the  last  verb  in  this  verse, 
see  ch.  1 :  4.  Its  use  in  this  connexion  is  a  strong  proof  that  it  cannot 
mean  provoke,  although  the  Seventy  so  translate  it  even  here. — The  collo- 
cation of  the  subject  and  the  object  in  the  first  clause  is  unusual.  See 
Ewald's  Heb.  Gr.  §  555.  For  the  syntax  of  the  infinitive  and  future  in  the 
same  clause,  see  Gesen.  <§>  129.  Rem.  2. 

V.  25.  Having  declared  in  the  foregoing  verse  what  should  be,  he  re- 
calls to  mind  what  has  already  been.  As  if  he  had  said,  God  will  visit  you 
for  these  things ;  nay,  he  has  done  so  already,  but  without  reclaiming  you 
or  satisfying  his  own  justice,  for  which  purpose  further  strokes  are  still  re- 
quired. The  previous  inflictions  here  referred  to  are  described  as  a  stroke 
from  Jehovah's  outstretched  hand,  so  violent  as  to  shake  the  mountains,  and 
so  destructive  as  to  fill  the  streets  with  corpses. — Therefore  (referring  to 
the  last  clause  of  v.  24)  the  anger  of  Jehovah  has  burned  against  his  people 
(literally  in  them  i.  e.  in  the  very  midst  of  them  as  a  consuming  fire),  and  he 
stretched  forth  his  hand  against  them  (literally  him,  referring  to  the  singular 
noun  people),  and  smote  them,  and  the  mountains  trembled,  and  their  carcass 
put  collectively  for  corpses)  was  like  sweeping  (refuse,  filth)  in  the  midst  of 
the  streets.  In  all  this  (i.  e.  even  after  all  this,  or  notwithstanding  all  this) 
his  anger  has  not  turned  back  (abandoned  its  object,  or  regarded  it  as  already 
gained),  and  still  his  hand  is  stretched  out  (to  inflict  new  judgments). — The 
future  form  given  to  the  verbs  by  Clericus  is  altogether  arbitrary.  Most  of 
the  later  writers  follow  Luther  in  translating  them  as  presents.  But  if  this 
verse  is  not  descriptive  of  the  past,  as  distinguished  from  the  present  and  the 
future,  the  Hebrew  language  is  incapable  of  making  any  such  distinction. 
This  natural  meaning  of  the  language  (which  no  modern  version  except 
Ewald's  fully  expresses)  is  confirmed  by  the  last  clause,  which  evidently 
introduces  something  posterior  to  what  is  here  described.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  suppose,  although  it  is  most  probable,  that  what  is  here  described 
had  actually  taken  place  before  the  Prophet  wrote.     In  this,  as  in  some 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   V.  81 


other  cases,  he  may  be  supposed  to  take  his  stand  between  I  nearer  and  a 
more  remote  futurity,  the  former  being  then  of  comae  described  t. — 

The  trembling  of  the  mountains  is  referred  by  Hendewerk  to  the  earthquake 

mentioned  Amos  1  :  1.  Zech.  14  :  5.  Jarchi  explains  it  of  the  fall  of  kii 
and  princes.  Junius  makes  the  Prophet  say  that  if  such  strokes  had  fallen 
upon  mountains  they  ivould  have  trembled. — J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  what 
is  said  of  the  dead  bodies  to  be  applicable  only  to  a  pestilence.  It  is  most 
probable,  however,  that  these  strong  expressions  were  intended  simply  to 
convey  the  idea  of  violent  commotion  and  a  general  mortality.  There  is  no 
need  of  referring  what  is  said  exclusively  to  evils  suffered  in  the  days  of 
Joash  and  Amaziah  (Junius)  or  in  those  of  Ahaz  (Vitringa),  since  the 
Prophet  evidently  means  to  say  that  all  preceding  judgments  had  been  insuf- 
ficient and  that  more  were  still  required. — The  act  expressed  by  nd  is  not 
so  much  that  of  turning  away  as  that  of  turning  back  or  ceasing  to  pursue. 
(See  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  9 :  4.  18.)  Saadias  and  Kimchi  derive  IHTiBQ 
from  noa  to  cut  or  tear,  in  which  they  are  followed  by  Calvin  (mutilum) 
Junius  (succisum),  and  the  English  version  (torn).  But  all  the  ancient  ver- 
sions and  most  modern  ones  make  3  a  preposition,  and  the  best  lexicographers 
derive  the  noun  from  mo  to  sweep. —  In  the  midst  of  the  streets  may  be 
taken  strictly  to  denote  in  the  middle  (Calvin:  in  medio  viarum),  or  more 
indefinitely  in,  within.     Vide  supra,  v.  8. 

V.  26.  The  former  stroke  having  been  insufficient,  a  more  effectual 
one  is  now  impending,  in  predicting  which  the  Prophet  does  not  confine  him- 
self to  figurative  language,  but  presents  the  approaching  judgment  in  its  pro- 
per form,  as  the  invasion  and  ultimate  subjection  of  the  country  by  a  formida- 
ble enemy,  vs.  26-30.  In  this  verse  he  describes  the  approach  of  these 
invaders  as  invited  by  Jehovah,  to  express  which  idea  he  employs  two  figures 
not  uncommon  in  prophecy,  that  of  a  signal-pole  or  flag,  and  that  of  a  hiss  or 
whistle,  in  obedience  to  which  the  last  clause  represents  the  enemy  as  rapidly 
advancing.  And  he  raises  a  signal  to  the  nations  from  afar,  and  hisses  (or 
whistles)  for  him  from  the  ends  of  the  earth ;  and  behold  in  haste,  swift, 
he  shall  come. — Here,  as  in  v.  25,  the  older  writers  understand  the  verbs  as 
futures,  but  the  later  ones  as  presents.  The  verbs  in  the  last  clause  have 
Vav  prefixed,  but  its  conversive  power  commonly  depends  upon  a  future  verb 
preceding,  which  is  wanting  here.  These  verbs  appear  to  form  a  link  be- 
tween the  past  time  of  v.  25  and  the  unambiguous  future  at  the  end  of  this. 
First,  he  smote  them,  but  without  effect.  Then,  he  raises  a  signal  and 
whistles.  Lastly,  the  enemy  thus  summoned  will  come  swiftly. — The  sin- 
gular suffix  in  ft  has  been  variously  explained  as  referring  to  the  king  whose 
subjects  had  been  previously  mentioned  (Targ.  Jon.),  or  to  the  army  as  a 
whole,  which  had  been  just  described  as  gentiles,  heathen  (Knobel,  Hitzig.)  or 

6 


82 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


to  the  ruling  power  under  whose  banners  the  other  nations  fought  (Vitr. 
Hendewerk),  or  simply  to  one  of  the  nations  previously  mentioned  (Ges. 
Umbr.) — The  nation  meant  has  been  also  variously  explained  to  be  the 
Romans  (Theodoret :  tovg  'Pcofiawvg  dia  tovtcov  Jr/|«),  the  Babylonians 
(Clericus),  and  the  Assyrians  (Ges.  Ew.  etc.)  But  this  very  disagreement, 
or  rather  the  indefinite  expressions  which  occasion  it,  show  that  the  terms  of 
the  description  were  designed  to  be  more  comprehensive.  The  essential 
idea  is  that  the  previous  lighter  judgments  should  be  followed  by  another 
more  severe  and  efficacious,  by  invasion  and  subjection.  The  terms  are  most 
emphatically  applicable  to  the  Romans. — The  hissing  or  whistling,  Hitzig 
supposes  to  have  reference  to  some  mode  of  alluring  birds  (Hos.  11  :  11. 
Zech.  10  :  8)  ;  but  the  common  and  more  probable  opinion  is  that  it  alludes 
to  the  ancient  mode  of  swarming  bees,  described  at  length  by  Cyril.  (See 
his  words  as  given  by  Bochart,  Hieroz.  p.  506). — In  the  last  clause  a  sub- 
stantive meaning  haste,  and  an  adjective  meaning  light,  are  both  used  adverb- 
ially in  the  sense  of  swiftly. 

V.  27.  The  enemy,  whose  approach  was  just  foretold,  is  now  described 
as  not  only  prompt  and  rapid,  but  complete  in  his  equipments,  firm  and 
vigorous,  ever  wakeful,  impeded  neither  by  the  accidents  of  the  way  nor  by 
defective  preparation.  There  is  no  one  faint  (or  exhausted)  and  there  is  no 
one  stumbling  (or  faltering)  among  them  (literally  in  him).  He  (the  enemy, 
considered  as  an  individual)  sleeps  not,  and  he  slumbers  not,  and  the  girdle 
of  his  loins  is  not  opened  (or  loosed),  and  the  latchet  (string  or  band)  of  his 
shoes  (or  sandals)  is  not  broken. — The  English  version  follows  Calvin  in 
translating  all  the  verbs  as  futures.  The  Vulgate  supplies  the  present  in  the 
first  clause,  and  makes  the  others  future.  But  as  the  whole  is  evidently  one 
description,  the  translation  should  be  uniform  ;  and  as  the  preterite  and  future 
forms  are  intermingled,  both  seem  to  be  here  used  for  the  present,  which  is 
given  by  Luther  and  most  of  the  late  writers. — The  last  clause  is  understood 
by  Henderson  and  others  as  denoting  that  they  do  not  disarm  or  undress 
themselves  for  sleep.  But  as  the  last  verb  always  denotes  violent  separation, 
it  is  most  probable  that  this  whole  clause  relates  to  accidental  interruptions 
of  the  march. — The  question  raised  by  Hendewerk  and  Henderson  as  to 
the  kind  of  girdle  here  referred  to,  is  of  no  exegetical  importance,  as  it  is 
only  joined  with  shoes  to  represent  the  dress  in  general. — In  him  may  be 
either  put  collectively  for  in  them,  or,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes,  may  refer 
to  the  army ;  and  Hendewerk  accordingly  has  it  slumbers  not,  etc. — The 
distinction  made  by  some  between  6W  and  }V>^  (Cocceius :  non  dormitat, 
multo  minus  dormit)  is  unnecessary  here,  where  the  verbs  seem  to  be  used  as 
mere  poetical  equivalents. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   V.  81 

V.  28.  The  description  is  continued,  but  with  special  reference  to  their 
Vfeapons  and  their  means  of  conveyance.  For  the  former,  hows  and  arrows 
are  here  put  ;  and  for  the  latter,  horses  and  chariots  (see  ch.  2:  7).  Whose 
arrows  are  sharpened  and  all  his  bows  bent  (literally  trod  upon)  ;  the  hoofs 
of  his  horses  like  flint  (or  adamant)  are  reckoned,  and  his  wheels  like  a 
whirlwind,  m  rapidity  and  violence  of  motion. — Gesenius,  Henderson,  and 
others,  omit  the  relative  at  the  beginning,  and  Junius  renders  it  as  a  conjunc- 
tion (quia).  But  it  serves  to  make  the  connexion  with  the  verse  preceding 
much  more  close  and  sensible. — As  BWtf,  like  the  Latin  acutae,  is  a  partici- 
ple, the  common  version  (sharp)  does  not  fully  express  its  meaning.  Indeed 
from  what  is  said  of  the  bows  immediately  afterwards,  the  prominent  idea 
would  seem  to  be  not  that  the  arrows  were  sharp,  but  that  they  were  already 
sharpened,  implying  present  readiness  for  use. — The  bows  being  trod  upon 
has  reference  to  the  ancient  mode  of  stringing,  or  rather  of  shooting,  the  bow 
being  large  and  made  of  metal  or  hard  wood.  Arrian  says  expressly,  in 
describing  the  use  of  the  bow  by  the  Indian  infantry,  "  placing  it  on  the 
ground,  and  stepping  on  it  with  the  left  foot,  so  they  shoot  (ovta>$  exro^a'otw), 
drawing  the  string  back  to  a  great  distance."  (See  the  original  passage  in 
Henderson.) — -The  passive  verb  ERfrj3  cannot  be  accurately  rendered  they 
resemble  (Ges.  Hitz.),  nor  even  they  are  to  be  counted  (Aug.  De  Wette),  but 
means  they  are  counted  (Cocc.  Ew.),  the  preterite  form  implying  that  they 
had  been  tried  and  proved  so. — The  future  form  given  to  this  whole  verse 
by  Calvin  and  Junius,  and  to  the  last  clause  by  Lowth  and  Barnes,  greatly 
impairs  its  unity  and  force  as  a  description. 

• 

V.  29.  By  a  sudden  transition,  the  enemy  are  here  represented  as  lions, 
roaring,  growling,  seizing  their  prey,  and  carrying  it  off  without  resistance  ; 
a  lively  picture,  especially  to  an  oriental  reader,  of  the  boldness,  fierceness, 
quickness,  and  success  of  the  attack  here  threatened.  He  has  a  roar  like  the 
lioness,  and  he  shall  roar  like  the  young  lions,  and  shall  growl,  and  seize 
the  prey,  and  secure  it,  none  delivering  (i.  e.  and  none  can  rescue  it). — 
Cocceius,  Vitringa,  and  the  modern  writers,  use  the  present  tense,  as  in  the 
foregoing  verses,  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  description.  But  there  the 
preterite  and  future  forms  are  mingled,  whereas  here  the  future  is  alone  used, 
unless  the  textual  reading  3Kun  be  retained,  and  even  then  the  Vav  may  be 
regarded  as  conversive.  Besides,  this  seems  to  be  the  turning  point  between 
description  and  prediction.  Having  told  what  the  enemy  is,  he  now  tells 
what  he  will  do.  It  seems  best  therefore  to  adopt  the  future  form  used  by 
the  ancient  versions,  by  Calvin,  and  by  Luther,  who  is  fond  of  the  present, 
and  employs  it  in  the  two  foregoing  verses. — Most  of  the  modern  writers 
follow  Bochart  in  explaining  ff*!$  to  denote  the  lioness,  which  is  the  more 
natural  in  this  case  from  the  mention  of  the  young  lions  immediately  after- 


84  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  V. 


wards.  The  image,  as  Henderson  suggests,  may  be  that  of  a  lioness  attended 
by  her  whelps,  or  rather  by  her  young  ones  which  are  old  enough  to  roar 
and  seek  their  prey  (see  Ez.  19:  2,  3.  and  Gesenius  s.  v.). — The  meaning 
of  b^b^  is  not  'he  shall  embrace5  (Vulg.  amplexabitur),  nor  'he  shall 
gather  spoil'  (Calv.  spolia  corradet),  nor  'he  shall  let  it  go'  in  sport  before 
devouring  it  (Luzzatto)  ;  but  he  shall  carry  it  off  safe,  place  it  in  safety,  or 
secure  it  (Ewald :   tobt  und  nimmt  den  Raub  und  sichert  ihn  ohne  Retter.) 

V.  30.  The  roaring  of  the  lion  suggests  the  roaring  of  the  sea,  and  thus 
a  beautiful  transition  is  effected  from  the  one  figure  to  the  other,  in  describing 
the  catastrophe  of  all  these  judgments.  Israel  is  threatened  by  a  raging  sea, 
and  looking  landward  sees  it  growing  dark  there,  until,  after  a  brief  fluctua- 
tion, the  darkness  becomes  total.  And  he  (the  enemy)  shall  roar  against 
him  (Israel)  in  that  day  like  the  roaring  of  a  sea.  And  he  shall  look  to  the 
land,  and  behold  darkness  !  Anguish  and  light !  It  is  dark  in  the  clouds 
thereof  (i.  e.  of  the  land,  the  skies  above  it). — The  Vulgate,  Peshito,  and  a 
great  majority  of  modern  writers,  disregard  the  Masoretic  accents,  and  con- 
nect ^a5n  with  it,  and  Tfa  with  !^".  Knobel  appears  to  be  the  first  who 
observed  that  this  arrangement  involves  the  necessity  of  vowel-changes  also, 
as  we  must  then  read  'is  for  is  and  liKJ  for  *&*.  Those  who  adopt  this 
interpretation  either  read  darkness  of  anguish  (Vulg.  Hitz.  Knobel)  or 
darkness  and  anguish  (Eng.  Vs.),  or  darkness,  anguish  (Hendewerk). 
Vitringa  still  construes  THH  separately,  '  as  for  the  light,'  but  the  others  con- 
nect it  with  7,i2?n  directly,  '  and  the  light  is  dark,'  etc.  The  only  objection 
to  the  Masoretic  interpretation  (which,  although  retained  by  Cocceius,  Ro- 
senmiiller,  Gesenius,  and  Maurer,  is  not  the  common  one,  as  Hitzig  repre- 
sents), is  the  alleged  incongruity  of  making  light  and  anguish  alternate 
instead  of  light  and  darkness,  a  rhetorical  nicety  unworthy  of  attention  where 
there  is  at  best  but  a  choice  of  difficulties.  Henderson  says,  indeed,  that 
it  is  "  quite  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the  text,  which  requires  a  state  of 
profound  darkness,  without  any  relieving  glimpses  of  light."  But  it  is  just 
as  easy  to  affirm  that  "  the  spirit  of  the  text"  requires  the  other  construction, 
which  is  moreover  recommended  by  its  antiquity,  traditional  authority,  sim- 
plicity, poetical  beauty,  and  descriptive  truth. — On  the  authority  of  the 
Aldine  and  Complutensian  text  of  the  Septuagint,  Lowth  supposes  an  omis- 
sion in  the  Hebrew,  which  he  thus  supplies,  '  and  these  shall  look  to  the 
heaven  upward  and  down  to  the  earth.'  But,  as  Barnes  has  well  observed, 
"  there  is  no  need  of  supposing  the  expression  defective.  The  Prophet 
speaks  of  the  vast  multitude  that  was  coming  up,  as  a  sea.  On  that  side 
there  was  no  safety.  It  was  natural  to  speak  of  the  other  direction  as  the 
land  or  shore,  and  to  say  that  the  people  would  look  there  for  safety.  But, 
says  he,  there  would  be  no  safety  there  ;  all  would  be  darkness."     Hitzig 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI.  85 

supplies  the  supposed  defect  by  putting  •nix  in  antithesis  to  -px,  '  one  looks 
to  the  earth  and  behold  the  darkness  of  distress,  and  to  the  light  (i.  e.  the 
sun  or  sky)  etc.'  But  the  introduction  of  the  preposition  is  entirely  arbi- 
trary and  extremely  forced. — Kimchi  and  Junius  explain  rpfns  to  mean 
its  ruins,  deriving  it  from  r^S  to  destroy  (Hos.  10:  2).  Clericus,  following 
an  Arabic  analogy,  translates  it  in  conclavibus,  which  seems  absurd.  The 
common  derivation  is  from  en*  to  distill  (Deut.  32:  2.  33:  28),  according  to 
which  it  means  the  clouds,  either  strictly,  or  as  a  description  of  the  heavens 
generally.  Lowth  and  several  of  the  later  Germans  give  the  particle  a  causal 
sense,  through  or  by  reason  of  its  clouds ;  but  the  proper  local  sense  of  in  its 
clouds  or  ikies  is  retained  by  Geseaius,  Ewald,  and  all  the  early  writers. 
The  second  verb  is  taken  indefinitely  by  all  the  modern  Germans  except  Ewald, 
who  translates  it  he  looks,  but  as  if  by  way  of  compensation,  gives  an  indefi- 
nite meaning  to  the  suffix  in  t^s  which  he  renders  over  or  upon  one  (iiber 
einem). — The  use  of  the  present  tense,  in  rendering  the  first  clause,  by 
Cocceius  and  the  later  Germans,  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  phrase  in 
that  day,  and  destroys  the  fine  antithesis  between  the  future  Bhs*  and 
the  preterite  *^3n  describing  the  expected  obscuration  as  already  past. — 
Clericus  appears  to  be  alone  in  referring  asa  to  the  enemy  (solo  adspectu 
terram  Israeliticam  terrebit !).  The  sense  of  the  last  clause,  according  to 
the  Masoretic  interpretation,  is  well  expressed  by  Gesenius,  '  (bald)  Angst, 
(bald)  Licht/  and  more  paraphrastic  ally  by  an  old  French  version,  *  il 
regardera  vers  la  terre,  mais  voici  il  y  aura  des  tenebres,  il  y  aura  affliction 
avec  la  lumiere,  il  y  aura  des  tenebres  au  ciel  audessus  d'elle  ' 


CHAPTER  VI. 

This  chapter  contains  a  vision  and  a  prophecy  of  awful  import.  At  an 
early  period  of  his  ministry,  the  Prophet  sees  the  Lord  enthroned  in  the 
temple  and  adored  by  the  Seraphim,  at  whose  voice  the  house  is  shaken, 
and  the  Prophet,  smitten  with  a  sense  of  his  own  corruption  and  unworthi- 
ness  to  speak  for  God  or  praise  him,  is  relieved  by  the  application  of  fire 
from  the  altar  to  his  lips,  and  an  assurance  of  forgiveness,  after  which,  in 
answer  to  the  voice  of  God  inquiring  for  a  messenger,  he  offers  himself  and 
is  accepted,  but  with  an  assurance  that  his  labours  will  tend  only  to  aggra- 
vate the  guilt  and  condemnation  of  the  people,  who  are  threatened  with 
judicial  blindness,  and,  as  its  necessary  consequence,  removal  from  the  deso- 
lated country  ;  and  the  prophecy  closes  with  a  promise  and  a  threatening 


86 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI. 


both  in  one,  to  wit,  that  the  remnant  which  survives  the  threatened  judg- 
ments shall  experience  a  repetition  of  the  stroke,  but  that  a  remnant  after  all 
shall  continue  to  exist  and  to  experience  God's  mercy. 

The  chapter  naturally  falls  into  two  parts,  the  vision,  vs.  1-8,  and  the 
message  or  prediction,  vs.  9-13.  The  precise  relation  between  these  two 
parts  has  been  a  subject  of  dispute.  The  question  is,  whether  the  vision 
is  an  introduction  to  the  message,  or  the  message  an  appendage  to  the 
vision.  Those  who  take  the  former  view  suppose  that  in  order  to  prepare 
the  Prophet  for  a  discouraging  and  painful  revelation,  he  was  favoured  with 
a  new  view  of  the  divine  majesty  and  of  his  own  unworthiness,  relieved  by 
an  assurance  of  forgiveness,  and  encouraged  by  a  special  designation  to  the 
self-denying  work  which  was  before  him.  Those  who  assume  the  other 
ground  proceed  upon  the  supposition,  that  the  chapter  contains  an  account 
of  the  Prophet's  original  induction  into  office,  and  that  the  message  at  the 
close  was  added  to  prepare  him  for  its  disappointments,  or  perhaps  to  try 
his  faith. 

Either  of  these  two  views  may  be  maintained  without  absurdity  and 
without  materially  affecting  the  details  of  the  interpretation.  The  second  is 
not  only  held  by  Jewish  writers,  but  by  the  majority  of  Christian  interpreters 
in  modern  times.  The  objection  to  it,  founded  on  the  place  which  the  chapter 
holds  in  the  collection,  is  met  by  some  with  the  assertion,  that  the  prophe- 
cies are  placed  without  regard  to  chronological  order.  But  as  this  is  a 
gratuitous  assumption,  and  as  the  order  is  at  least  prima  facie  evidence  of 
date,  some  of  the  latest  writers  (Ewald  for  example)  hold  that  the  date  of 
composition  was  Jong  posterior  to  that  of  the  event,  and  one  writer  (Hitzig) 
goes  so  far  as  to  assume,  that  this  is  the  latest  of  Isaiah's  writings,  and  was 
intended  to  exhibit,  in  the  form  of  an  ex  post  facto  prophecy,  the  actual 
result  of  his  official  experience.  This  extravagant  hypothesis  needs  no  refu- 
tation, and  neither  that  of  Ewald,  nor  the  common  one,  which  makes  this 
the  first  of  Isaiah's  writings,  should  be  assumed  without  necessity,  that  is, 
without  something  in  the  chapter  itself  forbidding  us  to  refer  it  to  any  other 
date  than  the  beginning  of  Isaiah's  ministry.  But  the  chapter  contains 
nothing  which  would  not  have  been  appropriate  at  any  period  of  that  minis- 
try, and  some  of  its  expressions  seem  to  favour,  if  they  do  not  require,  the 
hypothesis  of  previous  experience  in  the  office.  The  idea  of  so  solemn  an 
inauguration  is  affecting  and  impressive,  but  seems  hardly  sufficient  to  out- 
weigh the  presumption  arising  from  the  order  of  the  prophecies  in  favour  of 
the  other  supposition,  which  requires  no  facts  to  be  assumed  without  autho- 
rity, and  although  less  striking,  is  at  least  as  safe. 

V.  1.  In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died  (B.  C.  758),  I  saw  the  Lord 
sitting  on  a  throne  high  and  lifted  up,  and  his  sJcirts  (the  train  of  his  royal 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VI.  87 

robe)  filling  the  palace,  or,  taking  the  last  word  in  its  more  specific  B60 
the  temple,  so  called  tfl  being  the  palace  of  the  great  King.  "  No  man 
hath  seen  God  at  any  time"  (John  1  :  18),  and  God  himself  hath  said, 
"There  shall  no  man  sec  dm  and  live''  (Ex.  34:  20).  Yet  we  read  not 
only  that  "  the  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God"  (Matt.  5:  8),  but  that  Jacob 
said,  "  I  have  seen  God  face  to  face"  (Gen.  32 :  30).  It  is  therefore  plain 
that  the  phrase  to  "  see  God "  is  employed  in  different  senses,  and  that 
although  his  essence  is  and  must  be  invisible,  he  may  be  seen  in  the  mani- 
festation of  his  glory  or  in  human  form.  The  first  of  these  senses  is  given 
here  by  the  Targum  and  Grotius,  the  last  by  Clericus,  with  more  probability, 
as  the  act  of  sitting  on  a  throne  implies  a  human  form,  and  Ezekiel  like- 
wise in  prophetic  vision  saw,  "  upon  the  likeness  of  a  throne,  an  appear- 
ance as  the  likeness  of  a  man  above  upon  it"  (Ez.  1  :  26).  It  has  been  a 
general  opinion  in  all  ages  of  the  church,  that  in  every  such  manifestation  it 
was  God  the  Son  who  thus  revealed  himself.  In  John  12 :  41,  it  is  said  to 
have  been  Christ's  glory  that  Isaiah  saw  and  spoke  of,  while  Paul  cites  vs. 
9  and  10  (Acts  28:  25,  26)  as  the  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  seems 
needless  to  inquire  whether  the  Prophet  saw  this  sight  with  his  bodily  eyes, 
or  in  a  dream,  or  in  an  ecstasy,  since  the  effect  upon  his  own  mind  must 
have  been  the  same  in  either  case.  It  is  also  a  question  of  no  moment 
whether  he  beheld  the  throne  erected  in  the  Holy  Place,  or  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  or  in  heaven,  or,  as  Jarchi  imagines,  reaching  from  earth  to  heaven. 
The  scene  of  the  vision  is  evidently  taken  from  the  temple  at  Jerusalem, 
but  not  confined  to  its  exact  dimensions  and  arrangements.  It  has  been 
disputed  whether  what  is  here  recorded  took  place  before  or  after  the  death 
of  Uzziah.  Those  who  regard  this  as  the  first  of  Isaiah's  prophecies  are 
forced  to  assume  that  it  belongs  to  the  reign  of  Uzziah.     It  is  also  urged  in 

o  o  o 

favour  of  this  opinion,  that  the  time  after  his  death  would  have  been  de- 
scribed as  the  first  year  of  Jotham.  The  design,  however,  may  have  been 
to  fix,  not  the  reign  in  which  he  saw  the  vision,  but  the  nearest  remarkable 
event.  Besides,  the  first  year  of  Jotham  would  have  been  ambiguous, 
because  his  reign  is  reckoned  from  two  different  epochs,  the  natural  death 
of  his  father,  and  his  civil  death,  when  smitten  with  the  leprosy,  after  which 
he  resided  in  a  separate  house,  and  the  government  was  administered  by 
Jotham  as  prince-regent,  who  was  therefore  virtually  king  before  he  was 
such  formally,  and  is  accordingly  described  in  the  very  same  context  as 
having  reigned  sixteen  and  twenty  years  (2  Kings  15:  30,  33).  It  does 
not  follow,  however,  that  by  Uzziah's  death  the  Prophet  here  intends  his 
leprosy,  as  the  Targum  and  some  of  the  Rabbins  suppose,  but  merely  that 
the  mention  of  Uzziah  is  no  proof  that  the  vision  was  seen  before  he  died. — 
Abarbenel  and  Rosenmuller  refer  the  epithets  high  and  lofty  to  the  Lord, 
as  in  ch.  57:  15,  and  Calvin  understands  by  the  train  the  edging  of  the 


88 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VI. 


cloth  which  covered  the  throne.  But  the  common  explanation  is  in  either 
case  more  natural. — The  conjunction  before  ^"ix  is  not  to  be  connected 
with  rt*h  understood  (Hendewerk),  or  rendered  also  (English  Version),  but 
explained  as  an  example  of  a  common  Hebrew  idiom  which  prefixes  this 
particle  to  the  apodosis  of  a  sentence,  especially  when  the  first  clause  con- 
tains a  specification  of  time.  It  is  here  substantially  equivalent  to  then, 
and  is  so  rendered  by  Junius  and  Tremellius,  Gesenius,  Henderson,  and 
others. 

V.  2.  He  sees  the  Lord  not  only  enthroned  but  attended  by  his  minis- 
ters. Seraphim,  burning  spirits,  standing  above  it,  the  throne,  or  above  him 
that  sat  upon  it.  Six  wings,  six  wings,  to  one,  i.  e.  to  each.  With  two  he 
covers  his  face,  as  a  sign  of  reverence  towards  God,  and  with  two  he  covers 
his  feet,  for  the  same  purpose,  or  to  conceal  himself  from  mortal  view,  and 
with  two  he  flics,  to  execute  God's  will.  The  Hebrew  word  seraphim  is 
retained  by  the  Septuagint,  Peshito,  and  Vulgate,  but  by  the  Targum  para- 
phrased as  holy  ministers.  It  is  rightly  explained  by  Kimchi  and  Abulwalid 
as  meaning  angels  of  fire,  from  ftfnte  to  burn,  the  name  being  descriptive 
either  of  their  essence,  or,  as  Clericus  supposes,  of  their  ardent  love,  or,  ac- 
cording to  Grotius,  of  God's  wrath  which  they  execute.  Lightfoot  supposes 
a  particular  allusion  to  the  burning  of  the  temple,  which  is  needless  and  un- 
natural. This  reference  to  heat  as  well  as  light,  to  something  terrible  as 
well  as  splendid,  does  away  with  Gesenius's  objection  that  the  root  means  to 
burn,  not  to  shine,  and  also  with  his  own  derivation  of  the  noun  from  the 
Arabic  obw&  noble,  because  angels  are  the  nobility  of  heaven,  and  Michael 
is  called  one  of  the  chief  princes  (Dan.  10:  13).  Still  less  attention  is  due 
to  the  notion  that  the  word  is  connected  in  its  origin  with  Serapis  (Hitzig) 
and  signifies  serpents  (Umbreit),  sphinxes  (Knobel),  mixed  forms  like  the 
cherubim  (Ewald),  or  the  cherubim  themselves  (Hendewerk).  The  word 
occurs  elsewhere  only  as  the  name  of  the  fiery  serpents  of  the  wilderness 
(Num.  21:  6,  8.  Deut.  8:  15),  described  by  Isaiah  (14:  29.  30:  6)  as 
flying  serpents.  The  transfer  of  the  name  to  beings  so  dissimilar  rests  on 
their  possession  of  two  common  attributes.  Both  are  described  as  winged 
and  both  as  burning. — Umbreit  considers  standing  as  synonymous  with  serv- 
ing, because  servants  are  often  said  in  the  Old  Testament  to  stand  before 
their  masters.  But  it  is  better  to  retain  the  proper  meaning,  not  as  imply- 
ing necessarily  that  they  rested  on  the  earth  or  any  other  solid  surface,  but 
that  they  were  stationary,  even  in  the  air.  This  will  remove  all  objection 
to  the  version  above  him,  which  may  also  be  explained  as  describing  the  rela- 
tive position  of  persons  in  a  standing  and  sitting  posture.  There  is  no  need 
therefore  of  the  rendering  above  it,  which  is  given  in  our  Bible,  nor  of  taking 
the  compound  preposition  in  the  unusual  sense  of  near  (Grotius,  Henderson), 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI.  89 

or  near  above  (Junius),  around  (Sept.  Ges.  Ew.),  or  around  above 
(Tnrg.  Cocc.  Arg.  Urn.). — The  repetition  of  the  phrase  six  wings  sup- 
plies the  place  of  a  distributive  pronoun  (Ges.  §  118.  5).  The  version 
fix  pairs  of  wings  rests  on  an  entire  misconception  of  the  Hebrew  dual, 
which  is  never  &  periphrasis  of  the  number  two,  but  is  simply  a  peculiar 
plural  form  belonging  to  nouns  which  denote  things  that  naturally 
exist  in  pairs.  Hence  the  numeral  prefixed  always  denotes  the  number,  not 
of  pairs,  but  of  individual  objects.  (See  Ewald's  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  365.) — The 
future  form  of  the  verbs  denotes  continued  and  habitual  action.  According 
to  Origen  there  were  only  two  seraphs,  and  these  were  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  who  are  here  described  as  covering,  not  their  own  face  and  feet,  but 
the  face  and  feet  of  the  Father,  to  imply  that  although  they  are  his  revealers, 
they  conceal  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  his  eternity.  Jerome  denounces 
this  ingenious  whim  as  impious,  but  retains  the  same  construction  (faciem 
ejus,  pedes  ejus.)  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  is,  '  with  two  he  covered  his 
face,  lest  he  should  see  ;  with  two  he  covered  his  body,  lest  he  should  be 
seen  ;  and  with  two  he  served.'  The  covering  of  the  feet  may,  however, 
according  to  oriental  usage,  be  regarded  as  a  reverential  act,  equivalent  in 
import  to  the  hiding  of  the  face. 

V.  3.  He  now  describes  the  seraphim  as  praising  God  in  an  alternate  or 
responsive  doxology.  And  this  cried  to  this,  i.  e.  one  to  another,  and  said, 
Holy,  Holy,  Holy  (is)  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  fulness  of  the  whole  earth, 
that  which  fills  the  whole  earth,  is  his  glory ! — It  was  commonly  agreed 
among  the  Fathers,  that  only  two  seraphim  are  mentioned  here,  and  this 
opinion  is  maintained  by  Hendewerk.  It  cannot  be  proved,  however,  from 
the  words  this  to  this,  which  are  elsewhere  used  in  reference  to  a  greater 
number.  (See  Ex.  14:  20.  36:  10.  Jer.  46:  16.)  Clericus  explains 
th)is  to  this  as  relating  not  to  the  cry  but  the  position  of  those  crying,  alter 
ad  alterum  conversus.  Rosenmuller  understands  the  trine  repetition  as  im- 
plying that  the  words  were  uttered  first  by  one  choir,  then  by  another,  and 
lastly  by  the  two  together,  which  is  a  very  artificial  hypothesis.  The  allu- 
sion to  the  trinity  in  this  rgiadyiov  is  the  more  probable  because  different 
parts  of  the  chapter  are  referred  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  three  persons 
of  the  Godhead.  Calvin  and  Cocceius  admit  that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity 
cannot  be  proved  from  this  expression,  and  that  a  like  repetition  is  used  else- 
where simply  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  See  for  example  Jer.  7:4.  22 :  9. 
Ezek.  21  :  27.  But  according  to  J.  H.  Michaelis,  even  there  the  idea  of 
trinity  in  unity  was  meant  to  be  suggested  (cum  unitate  conjuncta  tripli- 
citas.)  Holy  is  here  understood  by  most  interpreters  as  simply  denoting 
moral  purity,  which  is  certainly  the  prominent  idea.  Most  probably,  however, 
it  denotes  the  whole  divine  perfection,  that  which  separates  or  distinguishes 


90  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI. 

between  God  and  his  creatures.  "  I  am  God  and  not  man,  the  Holy  One  in 
the  midst  of  thee."  Hos.  11:  9.  On  the  etymology  and  usage  of  this 
word,  see  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  22:  4,  and  29:  9.  Grotius  strangely  restricts 
its  import  by  referring  it  in  this  case  to  God's  righteousness  in  dealing  with  the 
king  and  people.  Umbreit  supposes  the  idea  of  a  separate  or  personal  God, 
as  opposed  to  the  pantheistic  notion,  to  be  included  in  the  meaning  of  the 
term.  Grotius  and  Junius  understand  by  "pttrrbs  all  the  land,  Luther  and 
Hendewerk,  all  lands ;  the  last  of  which,  although  inaccurate  in  form,  is 
really  synonymous  with  all  the  earth,  and  the  former  is  forbidden  by  the 
strength  of  the  expressions  in  the  text  and  context.  Clericus  makes  glory 
not  the  subject  but  the  predicate :  the  fulness  of  the  earth,  all  that  the  earth 
contains,  is  thy  glory,  or  promotes  it.  But  the  common  construction  is  sus- 
tained by  the  analogy  of  ch.  8  :  8,  where  fulness  of  the  earth  is  the  predi- 
cate, and  that  of  the  prayer  and  prediction  in  Ps.  72:  19  (let  the  whole 
earth  be  filled  with  his  glory),  and  Num.  14  :  21  (all  the  earth  shall  be  filled 
with  the  glory  of  Jehovah).  The  words  may  have  reference  not  only  to 
the  present  but  the  future,  implying  that  the  judgments  about  to  be  denoun- 
ced against  the  Jews,  should  be  connected  with  the  general  diffusion  of 
God's  glory.  There  may  also  be  allusion  to  the  cloud  which  filled  |he 
temple,  as  if  he  had  said,  the  presence  of  God  shall  no  longer  be  restricted 
to  one  place,  but  the  whole  earth  shall  be  full  of  it.  By  the  glory  of  God 
J.  H.  Michaelis  understands  his  essence  (Wesen)  or  God  himself.  But  the 
idea  of  special  manifestation  seems  to  be  not  only  expressed  but  prominent. 
The  same  writer  renders  rnxas  «TJ-n,  here  and  elsewhere,  God  of  gods, 
Clericus  as  usual  makes  it  mean  God  of  armies  or  battles.  The  Hebrew 
word  is  retained  by  the  Septuagint,  Luther,  Augusti  and  Umbreit.  The  use 
of  the  preterite  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  probably  euphonic.  The 
Vav  has  no  conversive  influence,  because  not  preceded  by  a  future  verb. 
(Nordh.  <§>  219.) 

V.  4.  The  effect  of  this  doxology,  and  of  the  whole  supernatural  ap- 
pearance, is  described.  Then  stirred,  or  shook,  the  bases  of  the  thresholds 
at  the  voice  that  cried,  or  at  the  voice  of  the  one  crying,  and  the  house  is 
filled  with  smoke.  The  words  D">B&n  niES<  are  explained  to  mean  the  lintel 
or  upper  part  of  the  door-frame,  by  the  Septuagint,  Luther,  and  J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis. The  Vulgate  gives  the  second  word  the  sense  of  hinges  (super- 
liminaria  cardinum).  It  is  now  commonly  admitted  to  mean  thresholds,  and 
the  other  word  foundations.  The  common  version,  posts,  is  also  given  by 
Clericus  and  Vitringa.  The  door  may  be  particularly  spoken  of,  because 
the  prophet  was  looking  through  it  from  the  court  without  into  the  interior. 
The  participle  crying  may  agree  with  voice  directly,  voce  clamante  (Junius 
and  Tremellius),  or  with  seraph  understood.    Clericus  makes  it  a  collective, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI.  91 

at  the  voice  of  those  dying,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Gesenius  and  others  ; 
but  Hendewerk  supposes  the  singular  form  to  intimate  that  only  one  cried 
at  a  time.  Coco-ins  ind  .1.  II.  Michaelis  understand  it  to  mean  every  one 
that  cried.  By  smoke  Knobcl  and  others  understand  a  cloud  or  vapour 
showing  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  Most  interpreters,  however,  understand 
it  in  its  proper  sense  of  smoke,  as  the  natural  attendant  of  the  fire  which 
blazed  about  the  throne  of  God,  or  of  that  which  burned  upon  the  altar, 
as  in  Lev.  16:  13  the  mercy-seat  is  said  to  be  covered  with  a  "cloud 
of  incense."  In  either  case  it  was  intended  to  produce  a  solemn  awe  in  the 
beholder.  The  reflexive  sense,  it  filled  itself,  given  to  the  last  verb  by 
Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  is  not  so  natural  as  the  simple 
passive,  it  was  filled  or  it  became  full. 

V.  5.  The  Prophet  now  describes  himself  as  filled  with  awe,  not  only 
by  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  but  also  by  a  deep  impression  of  his  own  sin- 
fulness, especially  considered   as  unfitting  him  to  praise  God,  or  to  be  his 
messenger,  and   therefore  represented  as  residing  in  the  organs  of  speech. 
And  I  said,  when  I  saw  and  heard  these  things,  then  I  said.  Woe  is  me, 
woe  to  me,  or  alas  for  me,  a  phrase  expressing  lamentation  and  alarm,  for  I 
am  undone,  or  destroyed,  for  a  man  impure  of  lips,  as  to  the  lips,  am  I,  and 
in  the  midst  of  a  people  impure  of  lips,  of  impure  lips,  I  am  dwelling,  and 
am  therefore  undone,  for  the  King,  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  my  eyes  have  seen.  The 
allusion  is  not  merely  to  the  ancient  and  prevalent  belief  that  no  one  could 
see  God  and  live  (Gen.  32:  30.  Judg.  6:  22-24.  13:  22.  Ex.  4:  10,  12. 
33 :  20.   1  Sam.  6 :  19),  but  to  the  aggravation  of  the  danger  arising  from 
the  moral  contrast  between  God  and  the  beholder. — According  to  an  old 
interpretation,  ^sna  is  a  statement  of  the  reason  why  he  was  alarmed,  to 
wit,  because  he  had  kept  silence,  quia  tacui  (Vulgate),  either  when  he 
heard  the  praises  of  the  seraphim,  or  when   it  was  his  duty  to  have  spoken 
in  God's  name.     The  last  sense  is  preferred  by  Grotius,  the  first  by  Lowth 
(I  am  struck  dumb),  and  with  some  modification  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  (that  I 
must  be  dumb).     This  sense  is  also  given  to  the  verb  by  Aquila,  Symma- 
chus,  Theodotion,  the  Peshito,  and  in   some  copies  of  the  Septuagint,  the 
common  text  of  which   has  xaravtwynai,  I  am  smitten  with   compunction. 
Most  other  writers,  ancient  and  modern,  understand   the  word  as  meaning 
lam  ruined  or  destroyed.     It  is  possible,  however,  as  suggested  by  Vitringa, 
that  an  allusion  was  intended  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb  in  its  ground-form, 
in  order  to  suggest  that  his  guilty  silence  or  unfitness  to  speak  was  the  cause 
of  the  destruction  which  he  felt  to  be  impending.     Above  sixty  manuscripts 
and  several  editions  read  ''r.E'W,  which,  as  Henderson  observes,  is  probably 
a  mere  orthographical  variation,  not  affecting  the  sense.     The  lips  are  men- 
tioned as  the  seat  of  his  depravity,  because  its  particular  effect,  then  present 


92  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI. 


to  his  mind,  was  incapacity  to  speak  for  God  or  in  his  praise.  That  it  does 
not  refer  to  official  unfaithfulness  in  his  prophetic  office,  is  apparent  from  the 
application  of  the  same  words  to  the  people.  The  preterite  form  of  the 
verb  implies  that  the  deed  was  already  done  and  the  effect  already  certain. 
The  substitution  of  the  present,  by  Luther  and  many  of  the  late  writers, 
weakens  the  expression. 

V.  6.  He  now  proceeds  to  describe  the  way  in  which  he  was  relieved 
from  this  distress  by  a  symbolical  assurance  of  forgiveness.     And  there  flew 
(or  then  flew)  to  me  one  of  the  seraphim,  and  in  his  hand  a  live  coal  (or  a 
hot  stone)  with  tongs  he  took  it  from  off  (or  from  upon)  the  altar  of  in- 
cense, according  to  Hendewerk  and  others,  but  according  to  Grotius,  that  of 
burnt-offering,  which  stood  without  the  temple  in  the  court  where  the  Pro- 
phet is  supposed  to  have  been  stationed.     Both  these  interpretations  take 
for  granted  the  necessity  of  adhering  to  the  precise  situation  and  dimensions 
of  the  earthly  temple,  whereas  this  seems  merely  to  have  furnished  the 
scenery  of  the  majestic  vision.     Knobel  understands  by  the  altar  the  golden 
altar  seen  by  John  in  heaven,  Rev.  8:  3.  9:  13.     All  that  is  necessary  to 
the  understanding  of  the  vision  is,  that  the  scene  presented  was  a  temple  and 
included  an  altar.     The  precise  position  of  the  altar  or  of  the  Prophet  is  not 
only  unimportant,  but  forms  no  part  of  the  picture  as  here  set  before  us. 
As  J-ie?:?1!  elsewhere  means  a  pavement,  and  its  verbal  root  to  pave,  and  as 
the  Arabs  call  by  the  same  name  the  heated  stones  which  they  employ  in 
cooking,  most  modern  writers  have  adopted  Jerome's  explanation  of  the  word, 
as  meaning  a  hot  stone  taken  from  the  altar,  which  was  only  a  consecrated 
hearth  or  fireplace.     The  old  interpretation  coal  is  retained  by  Hendewerk, 
who  denies  that  stones  were  ever  used  upon  the  altar.     In  the  last  clause 
either  the  personal  or  relative  pronoun  may  be  supplied,  he  toolc  it  or  which 
he  took ;  but  the  former  (which  is  given  by  Hendewerk,  De  Wette,  and 
Umbreit)  seems  to  agree  better  with  the  order  of  the  words  in  Hebrew.    The 
word  translated  tongs  is  elsewhere  used  to  signify  the  snuffers  of  the  golden 
candlestick,  and  tongs  are  not  named  among  the  furniture  of  the  altars ;  but 
such  an  implement  seems  to  be  indispensable,  and  the  Hebrew  word  may  be 
applied  to  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  a  forceps. — Hitzig  and  others,  who 
regard  the  seraphim  as  serpents,  sphinxes,  or  mixed  forms,  are  under  the 
necessity  of  explaining  hand  to  mean  forefoot  or  the  like.     Nothing  in  the 
whole  passage  implies  any  variation  from  the  human  form,  except  in  the 
addition  of  wings,  which  are  expressly  mentioned. 

V.  7.  And  he  caused  it  to  touch  (i.  e.  laid  it  on)  my  mouth,  and  said, 
Lo,  this  hath  touched  thy  lips,  and  thy  iniquity  is  gone,  and  thy  sin  shall  be 
atoned  for  (or  forgiven).     In  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  the  coal  from  off  the 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VI. 

altar  is  transformed  into  a  word  from  the  shechinah,  which  is  put  into  the 
Prophet's  mouth,  denoting  his  prophetic  inspiration.  So  Jeremiah  says  : 
"  The  Lord  put  forth  his  hand,  and  touched  my  mouth,  and  the  Lord  said 
unto  me,  behold,  I  have  put  my  words  in  thy  mouth"  (Jer.  1:9).  And 
Daniel :  "  One  like  the  similitude  of  the  sons  of  men  touched  my  lips  ; 
then  I  opened  my  mouth  and  spake"  (Dan.  10:  16).  Hence  the  Rabbins 
and  Grotius  understand  the  act  of  the  seraph  in  the  case  before  us  as  a 
symbol  of  prophetic  inspiration.  But  this  leaves  unexplained  the  additional 
circumstance,  not  mentioned  in  the  case  of  Jeremiah  or  Daniel,  that  the 
Prophet's  lips  were  not  only  touched,  but  touched  with-fire.  This  is  ex- 
plained by  Jerome  as  an  emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by  others  as  a 
symbol  of  purification  in  general.  But  the  mention  of  the  altar  and  the 
assurance  of  forgiveness,  or  rather  of  atonement,  makes  it  far  more  natural 
to  take  the  application  of  fire  as  a  symbol  of  expiation  by  sacrifice,  although 
it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  the  Prophet 
actually  saw  a  victim  burning  on  the  altar.  The  fire  is  applied  to  the  lips 
for  a  twofold  reason :  first,  to  show  that  the  particular  impediment  of  which 
the  Prophet  had  complained  was  done  away ;  and  secondly,  to  show  that 
the  gift  of  inspiration  is  included,  though  it  does  not  constitute  the  sole  or 
chief  meaning  of  the  symbol.  The  gift  of  prophecy  could  scarcely  be 
described  as  having  taken  away  sin,  although  it  might  naturally  accompany 
the  work  of  expiation.  The  preterite  and  future  forms  are  here  combined, 
perhaps  to  intimate,  first,  that  the  pardon  was  already  granted,  and  then 
that  it  should  still  continue.  This,  at  least,  seems  better  than  arbitrarily  to 
confound  the  two  as  presents. 

V.  8.  The  assurance  of  forgiveness  produces  its  usual  effect  of  readiness 
to  do  God's  will.  And  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  saying,  Whom  shall 
1  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?  And  I  said,  Here  am  I  (literally,  behold  me, 
or,  lo  I  am)  send  me.  The  form  of  expression  in  the  first  clause  may  imply 
that  the  speaker  was  now  invisible,  perhaps  concealed  by  the  smoke  which 
filled  the  house.  According  to  Jerome,  the  question  here  recorded  was  not 
addressed  to  Isaiah  himself,  because  it  was  intended  to  elicit  a  spontaneous 
offer  upon  his  part.  '  Non  dicit  Dominus  quern  ire  praecipiat,  sed  proponit 
audientibus  optionem,  ut  voluntas  praemium  consequatur.'  The  same  idea 
is  suggested  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  Umbreit.  For  us  is  regarded  by  Vi- 
tringa  as  emphatic,  '  who  will  go  for  us,  and  not  for  himself,  or  any  other 
object  ?'  But  the  phrase  is  probably  equivalent  to  saying,  '  who  will  be  our 
messenger  ?'  This  is  the  version  actually  given  by  Luther,  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
and  Gesenius.  Most  of  the  other  German  writers  follow  the  Vulgate  ver- 
sion, quis  nobis  ibit  1  The  plural  form,  us  instead  of  me,  is  explained  by 
Gesenius,  Barnes,  and  Knobel,  as  a  mere  pluralis  majestaticus,  such  as 


94  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI. 

kings  and  princes  use  at  this  day.  Hitzig  denies  the  existence  of  that  idiom 
among  the  orientals,  either  ancient  or  modern,  and  undertakes  to  give  a 
metaphysical  solution,  by  saying  that  the  speaker  looks  upon  himself  as  both 
the  subject  and  object  of  address.  Kimchi  and  Grotius  represent  the  Lord 
as  speaking,  not  in  his  own  name  merely,  but  in  that  of  his  angelic  council 
(tanquam  de  sententia  concilii  angelorum),  and  the  same  view  is  taken  by 
Clericus  and  Rosenmiiller.  The  Peshito  omits  for  us,  while  the  Septuagint 
supplies  instead  of  it  the  words  to  this  people,  and  the  Targum,  to  teach — 
1  whom  shall  I  send  to  prophesy,  and  who  will  go  to  teach  ?'  Jerome's  ex- 
planation of  the  plural,  as  implying  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  speaker,  is 
approved  by  Calvin,  who  was  doubtful  with  respect  to  the  zgiadyiov  in  v.  3. 
This  explanation  is  the  only  one  that  accounts  for  the  difference  of  number 
in  the  verb  and  pronoun — c  whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  V 
Jerome  compares  itnvith  the  words  of  Christ,  "  Ego  et  Pater  unurn  sumus  ; 
unum  ad  naturam  referimus,  sumus  ad  personarum  diversitatem."  The  phrase 
tfcn  is  the  usual  idiomatic  Hebrew  answer  to  a  call  by  name,  and  common- 
ly implies  a  readiness  for  service.  J.  D.  Michaelis  translates  it  I  am  ready. 
A  beautiful  commentary  upon  this  effect  of  pardoned  sin  is  afforded  in  Da- 
vid's penitential  prayer,  Psalm  51 :  12-15. 

V.  9.  The  prophet  now  receives  his  commission,  together  with  a  solemn 
declaration  that  his  labours  will  be  fruitless.  This  prediction  is  clothed  in 
the  form  of  an  exhortation  or  command  addressed  to  the  people  themselves, 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  it  more  palpably  before  them,  and  of  aggravating 
their  insanity  and  wickedness  in  ruining  themselves  after  such  a  warning. 
And  he  said,  Go  and  say  to  this  people,  Hear  indeed,  or  hear  on,  but  under- 
stand not,  and  see  indeed,  or  continue  to  see,  but  know  not.  In  most  pre- 
dictions some  obscurity  of  language  is  required  to  secure  their  full  'accom- 
plishment. But  here,  where  the  blindness  and  infatuation  of  the  people  are 
foretold,  they  are  allowed  an  abundant  opportunity  of  hindering  its  fulfilment 
if  they  will.  Not  only  is  their  insensibility  described  in  the  strongest  terms, 
implying  extreme  folly  as  well  as  extreme  guilt,  but,  as  if  to  provoke  them 
to  an  opposite  course,  they  are  exhorted,  with  a  sort  of  solemn  irony,  to  do 
the  very  thing  which  would  inevitably  ruin  them,  but  with  an  explicit  in- 
timation of  that  issue  in  the  verse  ensuing.  This  form  of  speech  is  by  no 
means  foreign  from  the  dialect  of  common  life.  As  J.  D.  Michaelis  well 
observes,  it  is  as  if  one  man  should  say  to  another  in  whose  good  resolutions 
and  engagements  he  had  no  faith,  c  Go  now  and  do  the  very  opposite  of  all 
that  you  have  said.'  A  similar  expression  is  employed  by  Christ  himself 
when  he  says  to  the  Jews  (Matt.  23:  32),  Fill  ye  up  then  the  measure  of 
your  fathers.  The  Septuagint  version  renders  the  imperatives  as  futures, 
and  this  version  is  twice   quoted  in   the  New  Testament  (Matt.  13  :  14. 


isaiaii,  chap.  vi.  95 

Acts  28:  26),  as  giving  correctly  the  essential  meaning  of  tiie  sentence  as  a 
prophecy,  though  Stripped  of  its  peculiar  form  as  an  ironical  command.     J. 
H.  Michaelis  and   GeSflDIUfl   make  even  the  original  expression  a  strict  pro- 
phecy, by  rendering  the  future  forms  as  futures  proper  (nee  tamen  foteliigetb) 
on  the  ground  that  bx  is  sometimes  simply  equivalent  to  xb,  or  that  the  sec- 
ond of  two  imperatives  sometimes  expresses  the  result  dependent  on  the  act 
denoted  by  the  first.     But  even  admitting  these   assertions,  both  of  which 
may  be  disputed,  the  predominant  usage  is  so  clear  as  to  forbid  any  departure 
from  the  proper  sense  of  the  imperatives  without  a  strong  necessity,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  does  not  exist.     Another  mode  of  softening  the  apparent 
harshness  of  the  language  is   adopted  by  the  Targum,  which  converts  the 
sentence  into  a  description  of  the  people,  'who  hear  indeed  but  understand 
not,  and  see  indeed  but  know  not. '     Ewald  and  some  older  writers  under- 
stand this  people  as  a  phrase  expressive  of  displeasure  and   contempt  in- 
tentionally substituted  for  the  phrase  my  people,  not  only  here  but  in  several 
other  places.     See  for  example  Ex.   32:  9.  Isai.  9:  16.  29:  13.  Jer.  7: 
16.     The  idiomatic  repetition  of  the  verbs   hear  and  see  js  disregarded  in 
translation  by  Luther,  Clericus,  and  De  Wette,  and  copied,   more  or  less 
exactly,  by  the   Septuagint  (texof/  dxovosze,  filtnovrtg  filijptze),   the   Vulgate 
(auditeaudientes/videte  visionem),  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  Vitringa.    Neither 
of  these  methods  conveys  the  true  force  of  the  original  expression,  which  is 
clearly  emphatic,   and  suggests  the  idea  of  distinctness,   clearness  (J.  D. 
Michaelis),  or  of  mere  external  sight  and  hearing  (Angusti),  or  of  abundant 
sight  and  hearing  (J.  H.  Michaelis  sufficient  is  sime),  or  of  continued  sight  and 
hearing  (Junius  indesinenter) ,  probably  the  last,  which  is  adopted  by  Gese- 
nius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Henderson,  and  Ewald.       Maurer  makes  the  pro- 
minent idea  that  of  repetition  (iterum  iterumque.)     The  idea  of  hearing  and 
seeing   without  perceiving  may  have  been  proverbial  among  the  Jews  as  it 
seems  to  have  been  among  the  Greeks  from  the  examples  given  by  Wetstein 
in  his  note  on  Matt.  13:  13.     Demosthenes  expressly  cites  it  as  a.  proverb 
(nccnoiuict),   oQwvtag  fit)  bonv  xai  anovovrag  fit)  axovnv,  and  the  Prometheus 
of  iEschylus  employs  a  like  expression,  in  describing  the   primitive  con- 
dition of  mankind,  on  which  one  of  the  Greek  scholiasts  observes,  dion  vovv 
xal  yooiTGiv  ovx  cfyoy. 

V.  10.  As  the  foregoing  verse  contains  a  prediction  of  the  people's  in- 
sensibility, but  under  the  form  of  a  command  or  exhortation  to  themselves, 
so  this  predicts  the  same  event,  as  the  result  of  Isaiah's  labours,  under  the 
form  of  a  command  to  him.  Make  fat,  gross,  callous,  the  heart  of  this 
people,  i.  e.  their  affections  or  their  minds  in  general,  and  its  ears  make  heavy, 
dull  or  hard  of  hearing,  and  its  eyes  smear,  close  or  blind,  lest  it  see  with  its 
eyes,  and  with  its  cars  hear,  and  its  heart  understand,  perceive  or  feel,  and 


96  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI. 

it  turn  to  me,  i.  e.  repent  and  be  converted,  and  be  healed,  or  literally  and 
one  heal  it,  the  indefinite  construction  being  equivalent  in  meaning  to  a  pas- 
sive. The  thing  predicted  is  judicial  blindness,  as  the  natural  result  and 
righteous  retribution  of  the  national  depravity.  This  end  would  be  promoted 
by  the  very  preaching  of  the  truth,  and  therefore  a  command  to  preach  was 
in  effect  a  command  to  blind  and  harden  them.  The  act  required  of  the 
Prophet  is  here  joined  with  its  ultimate  effect,  while  the  intervening  circum- 
stances, namely,  the  people's  sin  and  the  withholding  of  God's  grace,  are 
passed  by  in  silence.  But  although  not  expressed,  they  are  implied,  in  this 
command  to  preach  the  people  callous,  blind,  and  deaf,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis 
phrases  it.  The  essential  idea  is  their  insensibility,  considered  as  the  fruit 
of  their  own  depravity,  as  the  execution  of  God's  righteous  judgment,  and 
as  the  only  visible  result  of  Isaiah's  labours.  '  Deus  sic  praecipit  judiciali- 
ter,  populus  agit  criminaliter,  propheta  autem  ministerialiter '  (J.  H.  Mi- 
chaelis). In  giving  Isaiah  his  commission,  it  was  natural  to  make  the  last 
of  these  ideas  prominent,  and  hence  the  form  of  exhortation  or  command  in 
which  the  prophecy  is  here  presented.  Make  them  insensible,  not  by  an 
immediate  act  of  power,  nor  by  any  direct  influence  whatever,  but  by  doing 
your  duty,  which  their  wickedness  and  God's  righteous  judgments  will  allow 
to  have  no  other  effect.  In  this  sense  the  Prophet  might  be  said  to  preach 
them  callous.  In  other  cases,  where  his  personal  agency  no  longer  needed 
to  be  set  forth  or  alluded  to,  the  verse  is  quoted,  not  as  a  command,  but  a 
description  of  the  people,  or  as  a  declaration  of  God's  agency  in  making 
them  insensible.  Thus  in  Matt.  13 :  15,  and  in  Acts  28 :  26,  the  Septua- 
gint  version  is  retained,  in  which  the  people's  own  guilt  is  the  prominent 
idea — '  for  this  people's  heart  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are  dull  of  hear- 
ing, and  their  eyes  they  have  closed,  lest,'  etc.  In  John  12:  40,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  sentence  takes  a  new  form,  in  order  to  bring  out  distinctly 
the  idea  of  judicial  blindness — '  he  hath  blinded  their  eyes  and  hardened 
their  heart,  lest,'  etc.  Both  these  ideas  are  in  fact  included  in  the  meaning 
of  the  passage,  though  its  form  is  different,  in  order  to  suit  the  occasion  upon 
which  it  was  originally  uttered.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supposing, 
with  Cocceius,  that  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  are  infinitives  with  preterites 
understood  (impinguando  impinguavit — aggravando  aggravavit — oblinendo 
oblivit),  to  which  there  is  besides  a  philological  objection  (vide  supra,  ch.  5  : 
5).  The  paraphrase  in  John  no  more  proves  that  the  verse  must  be  directly 
descriptive  of  God's  agency,  than  that  in  Acts  and  Matthew  proves  that  it 
must  be  descriptive  of  the  people's  own  agency,  which  sense  is  actually  put 
upon  Cocceius's  construction  by  Abarbenel,  who  first  proposed  it,  and  who 
thinks  that  the  verbs  must  either  be  reflexive — '  the  heart  of  this  people  has 
made  itself  fat,  their  ears  have  made  themselves  heavy,  their  eyes  have  shut 
themselves,' — or  must  all  agree  with  1'ab — <  the  heart  of  this  people  has  made 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VI.  97 


itself  fat,  it  has  made  their  ears  heavy,  it  has  closed  their  eyes.'  That  a 
divine  agency  is  really  implied,  though  not  expressed  as  Cocceius  supposes, 
is  clear  from  the  paraphrase  in  John  12:40,  and  creates  no  difficulty  here 
that  is  not  common  to  a  multitude  of  passages,  so  that  nothing  would  be 
gained  by  explaining  it  away  in  this  one  instance.  '  Absque  hoc  testimo- 
nio,'  says  Jerome,  ■  manet  eadem  quaestio  in  ecclesiis,  et  aut  cum  ista  sol- 
ventur  et  ceterae?  aut  cum  ceteris  et  haec  indissolubilis  erit.' — The  same 
considerations  which  have  been  presented  render  it  unnecessary  to  suppose, 
with  Henderson  and  others,  that  the  command  to  blind  and  harden  is  merely 
a  command  to  predict  that  the  people  will  be  blind  and  hard ;  a  mode  of 
explanation  which  may  be  justified  in  certain  cases  by  the  context  or  by 
exegetical  necessity,  but  which  is  here  gratuitous  and  therefore  inadmissi- 
ble.— Gesenius,  Augusti,  and  De  Wette,  understand  by  heart  the  seat  of  the 
affections,  and  accordingly  translate  *p^  by  feel;  but  the  constant  usage  of 
the  latter  in  the  sense  of  understanding  or  perceiving  seems  to  require  that 
the  former  should  be  taken  to  denote  the  whole  mind  or  rational  soul.  The 
ancient  versions  take  iaab  as  an  ablative  of  instrument,  in  which  they  are 
followed  by  Luther,  the  English  Version  (with  their  heart),  Junius,  Vitringa, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Lowth,  Augusti,  and  Henderson.  Calvin  makes  it  the  subject 
of  the  verb  (cor  ejus  intelligat),  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig, 
De  Wette,  Ewald,  Umbreit.  The  last  construction  is  more  simple  in  itself, 
but  breaks  the  uniformity  of  the  sentence,  as  the  other  verbs  of  this  clause 
all  agree  with  people  as  their  subject. — Clericus  takes  ss^  as  a  noun  and 
reads  lest  there  be  healing,  and  the  same  sense  is  put  upon  it  as  a  verb  by 
Junius  and  Vitringa.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  substitute  the  first 
for  the  third  person,  and  I  heal  them.  Cocceius  refers  the  verb  to  God 
directly,  lest  he  heal  them,  in  accordance  with  his  explanation  of  the  first 
clause.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  assume  an  impersonal  or  indefinite  con- 
struction, which  may  either  be  resolved  into  a  passive  (Gesenius,  De  Wette, 
Henderson),  or  retained  in  the  translation  (Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk, 
Ewald).  Kimchi  explains  the  healing  mentioned  to  be  pardon  following 
repentance.  The  representation  of  sin  as  a  spiritual  malady  is  frequent  in 
the  Scriptures.  Thus  David  prays  (Ps.  41 :  4),  cHeal  my  soul,  for  I  have 
sinned  against  thee.'  Instead  of  heal,  in  the  case  before  us,  the  Targum 
and  Peshito  have  forgive,  which  is  substituted  likewise  in  the  quotation  or 
rather  the  allusion  to  this  verse  in  Mark  4:12. 

V.  11.  And  I  said,  How  long,  Lordl  And  he  said,  Until  that  cities 
are  desolate  for  want  of  an  inhabitant,  and  houses  for  want  of  men,  and 
the  land  shall  be  desolated,  a  waste,  or  utterly  desolate.        The  spiritual 
death  of  the  people  should  be  followed  by  external  desolation.     Hitzig  un- 
derstands the  Prophet  to  ask  how  long  he  must  be  the  bearer  of  this  thank- 

7 


98  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI. 

less  message  ;  but  the  common  explanation  is  no  doubt  the  true  one,  that  he 
asks  how  long  the  blindness  of  the  people  shall  continue,  and  is  told  until  it 
ruins  them  and  drives  them  from  their  county.  Grotius  supposes  a  par- 
ticular allusion  to  Sennacherib's  invasion,  Clericus  to  that  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar ;  but  as  the  foregoing  description  is  repeatedly  applied  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  the  Jews  who  were  contemporary  with  our  Saviour,  the  threatening 
must  be  equally  extensive,  and  equivalent  to  saying  that'the  land  should  be 
completely  wasted,  not  at  one  time  but  repeatedly.  Kimchi,  who  also  un- 
derstands the  verse  as  referring  to  the  Babylonian  conquest,  finds  a  climax  in 
the  language,  which  is  much  more  appropriate  however  when  applied  to 
successive  periods  and  events. — The  accumulation  of  particles  fcx  ^«5«  1*  is 
supposed  by  Henderson  to  indicate  a  long  lapse  of  time  ;  but  it  seems  to  differ 
from  the  simple  form  only  as  until  differs  from  until  that  or  until  when.  On 
the  meaning  of  "pRO,  vide  supra,  ch.  5 :  9. 

V.  12.  This  verse  continues  the  answer  to  the  prophet's  question  in  the 
verse  preceding.  And  (until)  Jehovah  shall  have  put  far  off,  (removed  to  a 
distance)  the  men  (or  people  of  the  country)  and  great  (much  or  abundant) 
shall  be  that  which  is  left  (of  unoccupied  forsaken  ground)  in  the  midst  of  the 
land.  This  is  little  more  than  a  repetition,  in  other  words,  of  the  declara- 
tion in  the  verse  preceding.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  make  the  last 
clause  not  a  threatening  but  a  promise  that  those  left  in  the  land  shall  be 
multiplied.  Clericus  and  Lowth  understand  it  to  mean  c  there  shall  be  many 
a  deserted  woman  in  the  land. '  Gesenius,  ( many  ruins.'  Ewald,  '  a  great 
vacancy  or  void  (Leere).'  Most  other  writers  take  JWrS  as  an  abstract, 
meaning  desolation  or  desertion.  But  the  simplest  construction  seems  to 
be  that  of  Henderson  and  Knobel,  who  make  it  agree  with  the  land  itself, 
and  understand  the  clause  as  threatening  that  there  shall  be  a  great  extent 
of  unoccupied  forsaken  land.  The  terms  of  this  verse  may  be  applied  to  all 
the  successive  desolations  of  the  country,  not  excepting  that  most  extreme 
and  remarkable  of  all  which  exists  at  the  present  moment. 

V.  13.  The  chapter  closes  with  a  repetition  and  extension  of  the  threat- 
ening, but  in  such  a  form  as  to  involve  a  promise  of  the  highest  import. 
While  it  is  threatened  that  the  stroke  shall  be  repeated  on  the  remnant  that 
survives  its  first  infliction,  it  is  promised  that  there  shall  be  such  a  remnant 
after  every  repetition  to  the  last.  And  yet — even  after  the  entire  desolation 
which  had  first  been  mentioned — in  it — the  desolated  land — (there  shall  re- 
main) a  tenth  or  tithe — here  put  indefinitely  for  a  small  proportion — and 
(even  this  tenth)  shall  return  and  be  for  a  consuming — i.  e.  shall  again  be 
consumed — but  still  not  utterly,  for — like  the  terebinth  and  like  the  oak — 
the  two  most  common  forest-trees  of  Palestine — which  in  falling — in  their 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VI.  99 

fallen  state,  when  felled — have  substance  or  vitality  in  (hem — so  a  holy  seed 
shall  be  or  is  the  substance — vital  principle — of  it — the  tenth  or  remnant  which 
appeared  to  be  destroyed.     However  frequently  the  people  may  seem  to  be 
destroyed,  there  shall  still  be  a  surviving  remnant,  and  however  frequently 
that  very  remnant  may  appear  to  perish,  there  shall  still  be  a  remnant  of  the 
remnant  left,  and  this  indestructible  residuum  shall  be  the  holy  seed,  the  true 
church,  the  XtSjifta  noei  ixXopp  %uqitos  (Rom.  11:  5).    This  prediction  was 
fulfilled,  not  once  for  all,  but  again  and  again  ;  not  only  in  the  vine-dressers 
and  husbandmen  left  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  afterwards  destroyed  in  Egypt ; 
not  only  in  the  remnant  that  survived  the  destruction  of  the  city  by  the  Ro- 
mans, and  increased  until  again  destroyed  by  Adrian  ;  but  in  the  present  ex- 
istence of  the  Jews  as  a  peculiar  people,  notwithstanding  the  temptations  to 
amalgamate  with  others,  notwithstanding  persecutions  and  apparent  extirpa- 
tions ;  a  fact  which  can  only  be  explained  by  the  prediction  that  "  all  Israel 
shall  be  saved."   (Rom.  11  :  26.)     As  in  many  former  instances,  throughout 
the  history  of  the  chosen  people,  under  both  dispensations,  "  even  so,  at  this 
present  time  also,  there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace."  The 
reference  of  holy  seed  to  Christ  (as  in  Gal.  3:  16)  restricts  the  verse  to  the 
times  before  the  advent,  and  is  here  forbidden  by  the  application  of  the  He- 
brew phrase  to  Israel  in  general  (Ezra  9:  2.  Comp.  Isaiah  4:  3.  65:  9),  a 
meaning  which  is  here  not  changed  but  only  limited,  upon  the  principle  that 
"  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel  (Rom.  9 :  6)."  As  thus  explained, 
the  threatening  of  the  verse  involves  a  promise.     There  is  no  need  therefore 
of  attempting  to  convert  it  into  a  mere  promise,  by  giving  to  ")?2  the  active 
sense  of  consuming  or  destroying  enemies  (De  Dieu),or  by  making  hifij  sig- 
nify return  from  exile  (Calvin)  and  connecting  Ssafc  with  what  follows — '  be 
destroyed  like  the  terebinth  and  oak'  i.  e.  only  destroyed  like  them.     The 
passive  sense  of  'issb  nr\*r\  is  fixed  by  the   analogy  of  Num.  24 :  22   and 
Isaiah  44 :  15.     The  idiomatic  use  of  the  verb  return,  to  qualify  another 
verb  by  denoting  repetition  is  of  constant  occurrence  and  is  assumed  here 
by   almost  all  interpreters   ancient  and  modern.     Besides,  the  tenth  left  in 
the  land  could  hardly  be  described  as  returning  to  it.     That  "isa  denotes 
purification  is  a  mere  rabbinical  conceit.    *C2t,a  has  been  variously  explained 
to   mean    the   sap  (Targum),  root  (De   Wette),  trunk    (Gesenius,)  germ 
(Hitzig),  etc.    But  the  sense  which  seems  to  agree  best  with  the  connexion 
and  the  etymology  is  that  of  substance  or  subsistence,  understanding  thereby 
the  vitality  or  that  which  is  essential  to  the  life  and  reproduction  of  the  tree. 
ha|ti  occurs  elsewhere  only  in   1  Chron.  26:  16,  where  it  seems  to  be  the 
name  of  one  of  the  temple-gates.     Hence  Aben  Ezra  supposes  the  prophet 
to  allude  to  two  particular  and  well  known  trees  at  or  near  this  gate,  while 
other  Jewish  waiters  understand  him  as  referring  to  the  timber  of  the  gate  or 
of  the  causeway  leading  to  it  (1  Kings  10:  5.)     The  same  interpretation  is 


100  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 


adopted  by  Junius,  and  Cocceius  explains  the  word  in  either  case  as  an  ap- 
pellative meaning  causeway.  But  with  these  exceptions,  all  interpreters  ap- 
pear to  be  agreed  in  making  the  word  descriptive  of  something  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  trees,  the  spreading  of  their  branches  (Vulgate),  the  casting  of 
their  leaves  (Targum)  or  of  their  fruit  (Septuagint),  or  the  casting  down  or 
felling  of  the  tree  itself,  which  last  is  commonly  adopted.  Instead  of  03,  re- 
ferring to  the  trees,  more  than  a  hundred  manuscripts  read  ns,  referring  to 
the  tenth  or  to  the  land.  The  suffix  in  the  last  word  of  the  verse  is  referred 
to  the  land  or  people  by  Ewald  and  Maurer,  but  with  more  probability  by 
others  to  the  tenth,  which  is  the  nearest  antecedent  and  affords  a  better  sense. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

Here  begins  a  series  of  connected  prophecies  (ch.  VII-XII),  belonging 
to  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  and  relating  in  general  to  the  same  great  subjects,  the 
deliverance  of  Judah  from  Syria  and  Israel,  its  subsequent  subjection  to 
Assyria  and  other  foreign  powers,  the  final  destruction  of  its  enemies,  the 
advent  of  Messiah,  and  the  nature  of  his  kingdom.  This  series  admits  of 
different  divisions,  but  it  is  commonly  agreed  that  one  distinct  portion  is 
contained  in  the  seventh  chapter.  Hendewerk  and  Henderson  suppose  it 
to  include  two  independent  prophecies  (vs.  1-9  and  10-25),  and  Ewald 
separates  the  same  two  parts  as  distinct  portions  of  the  same  prophecy. 
The  common  division  is  more  natural,  however,  which  supposes  vs.  1-16 
to  contain  a  promise  of  deliverance  from  Syria  and  Israel,  and  vs.  17-25  a 
threatening  of  worse  evils  to  be  brought  upon  Judah  by  the  Assyrians  in 
whom  they  trusted. 

The  chapter  begins  with  a  brief  historical  statement  of  the  invasion  of 
Judah  by  Rezin  and  Pekah,  and  of  the  fear  which  it  excited,  to  relieve 
which  Isaiah  is  commissioned  to  meet  Ahaz  in  a  public  place,  and  to  assure 
him  that  there  is  nothing  more  to  fear  from  the  invading  powers,  that  their 
evil  design  cannot  be  accomplished,  that  one  of  them  is  soon  to  perish, 
and  that  in  the  mean  time  both  are  to  remain  without  enlargement,  vs.  1-9. 

Seeing  the  king  to  be  incredulous,  the  Prophet  invites  him  to  assure 
himself  by  choosing  any  sign  or  pledge  of  the  event,  which  he  refuses  to  do, 
under  the  pretext  of  confidence  in  God,  but  is  charged  with  unbelief  by  the 
Prophet,  who  nevertheless  renews  the  promise  of  deliverance  in  a  symbolical 
form,  and  in  connexion  with  a  prophecy  of  the  miraculous  conception  and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VII.  101 

.nativity  of  Christ,  both  us  a  pledge  of  the  event,  and  as  a  measure  of  the 
time  in  which  it  is  to  take  place,  vs.  10-16. 

To  this  assurance  of  immediate  deliverance,  he  adds  a  threatening  of  ulte- 
rior evils,  to  arise  from  the  Assyrian  protection  which  the  king  preferred  to  that 
of  God,  to  wit,  the  loss  of  independence,  the  successive  domination  of  foreign 
powers,  the  harassing  and  predatory  occupation  of  the  land  by  strangers, 
the  removal  of  its  people,  the  neglect  of  tillage,  and  the  transformation  of 
its  choicest  vineyards,  fields,  and  gardens,  into  wastes  or  pastures,  vs.  17-25. 

V.  1.  Rezin,  the  king  of  Damascene  Syria  or  Aram,  from  whom  Uriah 
had  taken  Elath,  a  port  on  the  Red  Sea,  and  restored  it  to  Judah  (2  Kings 
14 :  22),  appears  to  have  formed  an  alliance  with  Pekah,  the  murderer  and 
successor  of  Pekahiah  king  of  Israel  (2  Kings  15 :  27),  during- the  reign  of 
Jotham  (ib.  v.  37),  but  to  have  deferred  the  actual  invasion  of  Judah  until 
that  king's  death  and  the  accession  of  his  feeble  son,  in  the  first  year  of 
whose  reign  it  probably  took  place,  with  most  encouraging  success,  as  the 
army  of  Ahaz  was  entirely  destroyed,  and  200,000  persons  taken  captive, 
who  were  afterwards  sent  back  at  the  instance  of  the  Prophet  Oded 
(2  Chron.  28:  5-15).  But  notwithstanding  this  success,  they  were  unable 
to  effect  their  main  design,  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  whether  repelled  by 
the  natural  strength  and  artificial  defences  of  the  place  itself,  or  interrupted 
in  the  siege  by  the  actual  or  dreaded  invasion  of  their  own  dominions  by  the 
king  of  Assyria  (2  Kings  16 :  7-9).  It  seems  to  be  at  a  point  of  time  between 
their  first  successes  and  their  final  retreat,  that  the  Prophet's  narrative  begins. 
And  it  was — happened,  came  to  pass — in  the  days  of  Ahaz,  son  of  Jotham, 
son  of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  that  Rezin  kivg  of  Aram — or  Syria — and 
Pekah,  son  of  Remaliah,  king  of  Israel,  came  up  to — or  against — Jerusalem, 
to  war  against  it ;  and  he  icas  not  able  to  war  against  it.  As  tear  is  both 
a  verb  and  noun  in  English,  it  may  be  used  to  represent  the  Hebrew  verb 
and  noun  in  this  sentence.  Some  give  a  different  meaning  to  the  two, 
making  one  mean  to  fight  and  the  other  to  conquer  (Vulgate)  or  take  (Hen- 
derson) ;  but  this  distinction  is  implied,  not  expressed,  and  the  simple 
meaning  of  the  words  is  that  he  (put  by  a  common  license  for  they,  or 
meaning  each  of  them,  or  referring  to  Rezin  as  the  principal  confederate) 
could  not  do  what  he  attempted.  There  is  no  need  of  taking  Vz*  in  the 
absolute  sense  of  prevailing  (Vitringa),  which  wrould  require  a  different 
construction.  It  is  sufficient  to  supply  the  idea  of  success  in  either  case ; 
they  wished  of  course  to  war  successfully  against  it,  which  they  could  not 
do.  Gesenius  sets  the  first  part  of  this  chapter  down  as  the  production  of 
another  hand,  because  it  speaks  of  Isaiah  in  the  third  person,  and  because 
the  first  verse  nearly  coincides  with  2  Kings  16:5.  But  as  that  may  just 
as  well  have  been  derived  from  this — a  supposition  favoured  by  the  change 


102  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

of  hb*  into  JiJtoj — and  as  the  use  of  the  third  person  is  common  among  ancient 
writers,  sacred  and  profane,  Isaiah  himself  not  excepted  (ch.  20, 37, 38),  there 
is  no  need  even  of  supposing  with  Vitringa,  that  the  last  clause  was  added 
at  a  later  period,  by  the  sacred  scribes,  or  with  Hengstenberg  and  Ewald, 
that  the  verse  contains  a  general  summary,  in  which  the  issue  of  the  war  is 
stated  by  anticipation.  It  is  not  improbable,  indeed,  that  this  whole  pro- 
phecy was  written  some  time  after  it  was  first  delivered  ;  but  even  this 
supposition  is  not  necessary  for  the  removal  of  the  alleged  difficulty,  which 
arises  wholly  from  assuming,  that  this  verse  and  the  next  relate  to  the 
beginning  of  the  enterprise,  when  Rezin  and  Pekah  first  invaded  Judah, 
whereas,  they  relate  to  the  attack  upon  Jerusalem,  after  the  country  had 
been  ravaged,  and  the  disappointment  with  which  they  are  threatened  below 
is  the  disappointment  of  their  grand  design  upon  the  royal  city,  which  was 
the  more  alarming  in  consequence  of  what  they  had  already  effected.  This 
view  of  the  matter  brings  the  two  accounts  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  into 
perfect  harmony,  without  supposing  what  is  here  described  to  be  either  the 
first  (Grotius,  Usher,)  or  second  (Jerome,  Theddoret,  Jarchi,  Vitringa, 
Rosenmuller,)  of  two  different  invasions,  or  that  although  they  relate  to  the 
same  event  (Lightfoot)>  the  account  in  Chronicles  is  chargeable  with  igno- 
rant exaggeration  (Gesenius).  Another  view  of  the  matter,  which  also 
makes  the  two  *  accounts  refer  to  one  event,  is  that  of  Hengstenberg,  who 
supposes  the  victory  of  Pekah  described  in  Chronicles  to  have  been  the 
consequence  of  the  unbelief  of  Ahaz,  and  his  refusal  to  accept  the  divine 
promise.  But  the  promise,  instead  of  being  retracted,  is  renewed,  and  the 
other  supposition,  that  Pekah's  victory  preceded  what  is  here  recorded, 
seems  to  agree  better  with  the  terror  of  Ahaz,  and  with  the  comparison  in 
v.  3.  Either  hypothesis,  however,  may  be  entertained,  without  materially 
affecting  the  details  of  the  interpretation.  The  invaders  are  said  to  have 
come  up  to  Jerusalem,  not  merely  as  a  military  phrase  (Vitringa),  nor  with 
exclusive  reference  to  its  natural  position  (Knobel),  its  political  pre-eminence 
(Henderson),  or  its  moral  elevation  (C.  B.  Michaelis),  but  with  allusion, 
more  or  less  distinct,  to  all  the  senses  in  which  the  holy  city  was  above  all 
others.  On  the  construction  of  Jerusalem  directly  with  the  verb  of  motion, 
see  Gesenius,  §  116.  L. 

V.  2.  And  it  was  told  the  house  of  David — the  court,  the  royal  family, 
of  Judah — saying,  Syria  resteth — or  is  resting — upon  Ephraim  :  and  his 
heart — i.  e.  the  king's,  as  the  chief  and  representative  of  the  house  of  Da- 
vid— and  the  heart  of  his  people  shook,  like  the  shaking  of  the  trees  of  a 
jvood  before  a  wind.  This  is  commonly  applied  to  the  effect  produced  by 
<the  first  news  of  the  coalition  between  Rezin  and  Pekah  or  the  junction  of 
their  forces.     The  oldest  writers  understand  the  news  to  be  that  Syria  is 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VII. 

confederate  or  joined  with  Ephraim  (Septua^gint,  Targum,  Peshito,  Vul- 
gate, Calvin,  English  Version,  etc).  Some,  however,  read,  in  violation  of 
the  accents,  r.'r:  ,  and  translate  thus — Syria  is  marching  or  leading  his 
forces  towards  Ephraim  (J.  D.  Michaelis)  or  with  Ephraim  (Henderson). 
Others,  Syria  relies  upon — or  is  supported  by — Ephraim  (Lowth,  Barnes). 
Others,  Syria  influences  or  controls  Ephraim  (Vitringa).  But  most  in- 
terpreters, especially  the  latest,  Syria  is  encamped  upon  (the  territory  of) 
Ephraim,  or,  as  Steudel  understands  it,  near  (the  city  of)  Ephraim.  It 
is  equally  natural,  and  more  consistent  with  the  history,  to  understand  the 
words  as  ha*ving  reference  to  a  later  date,  i.  e.  either  the  time  of  the  advance 
upon  Jerusalem,  or  that  of  the  retreat  of  the  invaders,  laden  with  the  spoil 
of  Judah,  and  with  two  hundred  thousand  captives.  In  the  one  case,  Syria, 
i.  e.  the  Syrian  army,  may  be  said  to  rest  upon  (the  army  of)  Ephraim,  in 
the  modern  military  sense,  with  reference  to  their  relative  position  on  the 
field  of  battle ;  in  the  other,  Syria  may  be  described  as  literally  resting  or 
reposing  in  the  territory  of  Ephraim,  on  its  homeward  march,  and  as  thereby 
filling  Ahaz  with  the  apprehension  of  a  fresh  attack.  Although  neither  of 
these  explanations  may  seem  altogether  natural,  they  are  really  as  much  so 
as  any  of  the  others  which  have  been  proposed,  and  in  a  case  where  we 
have  at  best  a  choice  of  difficulties,  these  may  claim  the  preference  as  tend- 
ing to  harmonize  the  prophecy  with  history  as  given  both  in  Kings  and 
Chronicles.  We  read  in  2  Kings  16 :  7-9,  that  Ahaz  applied  to  Tiglath- 
pileser,  king  of  Assyria,  to  help  him  against  Syria  and  Israel,  which  he  did. 
At  what  precise  period  of  the  war  this  alliance  was  formed,  it  is  not  easy  to 
determine ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  Ahaz,  at  the  time  here 
mentioned,  was  relying  upon  some  human  aid  in  preference  to  God. — 
The  construction  of  the  feminine  verb  nna  with  the  masculine  ens  is  to  be 
explained,  not  by  supplying  rittba  (Jarchi)  or  rm  (Rosenmiiller)  before 
the  latter,  but  by  the  idiomatic  usage  which  connects  the  names  of  coun- 
tries, where  they  stand  for  the  inhabitants,  with  verbs  of  this  form,  as  in 
Job  1 :  15,  1  Sam.  17:  21,  and  2  Sam.  8:  6,  where  this  very  name  is  so 
construed. 

V.  3.  From  this  alarm  Isaiah  is  sent  to  free  the  king.  And  Jehovah 
said  to  Isaiah  son  of  Amoz,  Go  out  to  meet  Ahaz,  thou  and  Shearjashuh  thy 
son,  to  the  end  of  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool,  to  the  highway  of  the  ful- 
ler's field.  The  mention  of  these  now  obscure  localities,  although  it  detracts 
nothing  from  the  general  clearness  of  the  passage,  is  an  incidental  proof  of 
authenticity,  which  no  later  writer  would  or  could  have  forged.  The  upper 
pool,  which  has  been  placed  by  different  writers  upon  almost  every  side  of 
Jerusalem,  is  identified  by  Robinson  and  Smith  with  a  large  tank  at  the 
head  of  the  Valley  of  Hinnom,  about  seven  hundred  yards  west-north-west 


.104  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 


from  the  Jaffa  gate.  It  is  fyll  in  the  rainy  season,  and  its  waters  are  then 
conducted  by  a  small  rude  aqueduct  to  the  vicinity  of  the  gate  just  men- 
tioned, and  so  to  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah  within  the  walls.  This  aqueduct  is 
probably  the  conduit  mentioned  in  the  text,  and  the  end  of  this  conduit  the 
point  where  it  enters  the  city,  as  appears  from  the  fact,  that  when  Rabsha- 
keh  afterwards  conferred  with  the  ministers  of  Hezekiah  at  this  same  spot,  he 
was  heard  by  the  people  on  the  city  wall  (ch.  36 :  2,  12).  From  the  same 
passage  it  may  be  inferred  that  this  was  a  frequented  spot,  which  some  sup- 
pose to  be  the  reason  that  Isaiah  was  directed  to  it,  while  others  understand 
the  direction  as  implying  that  Ahaz  was  about  to  fortify  the  city,  or  rather 
to  cut  off  a  supply  of  water  from  the  invaders,  as  Hezekiah  afterwards  did 
when  besieged  by  Sennacherib  (2  Chr.  32 :  4)  ;  an  example  often  followed 
afterwards,  particularly  in  the  sieges  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey,  Titus,  and 
Godfrey  of  Bouillon.  The  Prophet  is  therefore  commanded  to  go  out,  not 
merely  from  his  house,  but  from  the  city,  to  meet  Ahaz,  which  does  not  im- 
ply that  the  king  was  seeking  him,  or  coming  to  him,  but  merely  specifies 
the  object  which  he  was  to  seek  himself.  For  the  various  opinions  with 
respect  to  the  position  of  the  Upper  Pool — so  called  in  relation  to  the  Lower 
Pool,  mentioned  in  chap.  22  :  9,  and  situated  lower  down  in  the  same  valley, 
south  of  the  Jaffa  Gate — see  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  and  Hitzig  on  this 
passage,  Winer's  Realworterbuch  s.  v.  Teiche,  and  Robinson's  Palestine, 
vol.  i.  pp.  352,  483.  The  Fuller's  Field  was  of  course  without  the  city, 
and  the  highway  or  causeway  mentioned  may  have  led  either  to  it  or  along 
it,  so  as  to  divide  it  from  the  aqueduct. — The  command  to  take  his  son  with 
him  might  be  regarded  merely  as  an  incidental  circumstance,  but  for  the  fact 
that  the  name  Shear-jashub  is  significant,  and  as  we  may  suppose  it  to  have 
been  already  known,  and  the  people  were  familiar  with  the  practice  of  con- 
veying instruction  in  this  form,  the  very  sight  of  the  child  would  perhaps 
suggest  a  prophecy,  or  recall  one  previously  uttered,  or  at  least  prepare  the 
mind  for  one  to  come ;  and  accordingly  we  find  in  ch.  10 :  21  this  very 
phrase  employed,  not  as  a  name,  but  in  its  proper  sense,  a  remnant  shall 
return.  Cocceius  assigns  two  other  reasons  for  the  presence  of  the  child — 
that  he  might  early"  learn  the  duties  of  a  prophet — and  th^t  the  sight  of  him 
might  prove  to  all  who  heard  the  ensuing  prophecy,  that  the  mother  men- 
tioned in  v.  14  could  not  be  the  Prophet's  wife.  But  this  precaution  would 
have  answered  little  purpose  against  modern  license  of  conjecture  ;  for  Gese- 
nius does  not  scruple  to  assume  a  second  marriage. 

V.  4.  The  assurance,  by  which  Ahaz  is  encouraged,  is  that  the  danger 
is  over,  that  the  fire  is  nearly  quenched,  that  the  enemies,  who  lately 
seemed  like  flaming  firebrands  of  war,  are  now  mere  smoking  ends  of  fire- 
brands ;  he  is  therefore  exhorted  to  be  quiet  and  confide  in  the  divine  pro- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VII.  105 

tection.  And  thou  shall  say  to  him,  Be  cautious  and  be  quiet— or  take  C 
to  be  quiet — fear  not,  nor  let  thy  heart  he  soft,  before — or  on  account  of — 
these  two  smoking  tails  of  firebrands,  in  the  heat  of  the  anger  of  R< 
and  Syria  and  the  son  of  Remaliah.  The  comparison  of  Rezin  and  Pekah 
to  the  tails  or  .ends  of  firebrands,  instead  of  firebrands  themselves,  is  not  a 
mere  expression  of  contempt,  as  most  interpreters  suppose,  nor  a  mere  inti- 
mation of  their  approaching  fate,  as  Barnes  and  Henderson  explain  it,  but  a 
distinct  allusion  to  the  evil  which  they  had  already  done,  and  which  should 
never  be  repeated.  If  the  emphasis  were  only  in  the  use  of  the  word  tails, 
the  tail  of  any  thing  else  would  have  been  equally  appropriate.  The  smok- 
ing remnant  of  a  firebrand  implies  a  previous  flame,  if  not  a  conflagration. 
This  confirms  the  conclusion  before  drawn,  that  Judah  had  already  been 
ravaged,  and  that  the  narratives  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent and  relate  to  the  same  subject.  The  older  versions  construe  the 
demonstrative  with  firebrands — '  the  tails  of  these  two  smoking  firebrands  ;' 
the  moderns  more  correctly  with  tails — c  these  two  tails  or  ends  of  smoking 
firebrands.' — The  last  clause  of  the  verse  is  not  to  be  construed  with  BTtttft — 
'  smoking  in  the  anger  of  Rezin  etc.'  but  with  the  verbs  preceding — '  fear 
not,  nor  let  thy  heart  be  faint  in  the  anger  etc.'  The  reason  implied  in 
the  connexion  is  that  the  hot  fire  of  their  anger  was  now  turned  to  smoke 
and  almost  quenched. — The  distinct  mention  of  Rezin  and  Syria,  while 
Pekah  is  simply  termed  the  son  of  Remaliah,  is  supposed  by  some  to  be 
intended  to  express  contempt  for  the  latter,  though  the  difference  may  after 
all  be  accidental,  or  have  only  a  rhythmical  design.  The  patronymic,  like 
our  English  surname,  can  be  used  contemptuously  only  when  it  indicates 
ignoble  origin,  in  which  sense  it  may  be  applied  to  Pekah,  who  was  a 
usurper,  as  the  enemies  of  apoleon  Nalways  chose  to  call  him  Buonaparte, 
because  the  name  betrayed  an  origin  both  foreign  and  obscure. 

V.  5.  Because  Syria  has  devised,  meditated,  purposed,  evil  against 
thee,  also  Ephraim  and  RemaliaJvs  son,  saying.  Hendewerk,  and  most 
of  the  early  writers,  connect  this  with  what  goes  before,  as  a  further  explana- 
tion of  the  king's  terror — '  fear  not,  nor  let  thy  heart  be  faint,  because  Syria 
etc'  But  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Henderson,  Ewald  and  Umbreit,  make  it  the 
beginning  of  a  sentence,  the  apodosis  of*  which  is  contained  in  v.  7 — c  be- 
cause (or  although)  Syria  has  devised  etc.  therefore  (or  nevertheless)  thus 
saith  the  Lord  etc'  The  two  constructions  may  be  blended  by  regarding 
this  .verse  and  the  next  as  a  link  or  connecting  clause  between  the  exhorta- 
tion in  v.  4  and  the  promise  in  v.  7.  '  Fear  not  because  Syria  and  Israel 
thus  threaten,  for  on  that  very  account  the  Lord  declares  etc'  Here  again 
Syria  appears  as  the  prime  agent  and  controlling  power,  although  Ephraim 
is  added  in  the  second  clause.     The  suppression  of  Pekah's  proper  name  in 


106  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

this  clause,  and  of  Rezin's  altogether  in  the  first,  has  given  rise  to  various 
far-fetched  explanations,  though  it  seems  in  fact  to  show,  that  the  use  of 
names  in  the  whole  passage  is  rather  euphonic  or  rhythmical  than  significant. 

V.  6.  The  invaders  themselves  are  now  introduced  as  holding  counsel 
or  addressing  one  another,  not  at  the  present  moment,  but  at  the*  time  when 
their  plan  was  first  concerted.  We  will  go  up,  or  let  us  go  up,  into  Judah, 
or  against  it,  although  this  is  rather  implied  than  expressed,  and  vex  (i.  e. 
harass  or  distress)  it,  and  make  a  breach  in  it  (thereby  subduing  it)  to  our- 
selves, and  let  us  make  a  Icing  in  the  midst  of  it,  to  wit,  the  son  of  Tabedl 
or  Tabeel,  as  the  name  is  written  out  of  pause,  Ezra  4  :  7.  The  feminine 
suffixes  probably  refer,  not  to  Judah  (Henderson)  but  to  Jerusalem  (Gese- 
nius,  Rosenmiiller),  although  the  same  terms  are  applied  to  the  whole 
country  elsewhere  (2  Chron.  21  :  17).  The  reference  to  Jerusalem  is  re- 
quired by  the  history,  according  to  which  they  did  succeed  in  their  attack 
upon  the  kingdom,  but  were  foiled  in  their  main  design  of  conquering  the 
royal  city.  The  entrance  into  Judah  was  proposed  only  as  a  means  to  this 
end,  and  it  is  the  failure  of  this  end  that  is  predicted  in  the  next  verse. 
The  reference  to  the  city  is  also  recommended  by  the  special  reference  to 
the  capital  cities  of  Syria  and  Ephraim  in  vs.  8,  9.  H|S*»p«  is  explained  to 
mean  let  us  arouse  her  by  the  Vulgate  (suscitemus  earn),  Luther  (aufwecken), 
Calvin  and  others,  which  supposes  the  verb  to  be  derived  from  ypft  (yp.i) 
to  awaJcen.  Others,  deriving  it  from  yxpr  to  cut  off,  explain  it  to  mean  let  us 
dismember  or  divide  it  (Vitringa,  Augusti),  or  subvert,  destroy  it  (Peshito, 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Schroeder,  Henderson).  The  simplest  etymology,  and  that 
most  commonly  adopted,  derives  it  from  "pp  to  be  distressed  or  terrified,  and 
in  the  Hiphil  to  alarm  (Hitzig),  or  to  distress,  with  special  reference  to  the 
hardships  of  a  siege  (Kimchi,  Aben  Ezra,  Cocceius,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius, 
Ewald  etc.).  Oppress  (Barnes)  is  too  indefinite.  The  other  verb  has  also 
been  variously  explained,  as  meaning  let  us  level  it  (from  fisps  a  plain),  let 
us  tear  it  away  (Vulgate  :  avellamus  ad  nos),  let  us  divide  or  rend  it  (Luther, 
Cocceius,  Alting,  J.  W.  Michaelis,  Vitringa,  Barnes).  It  is  now  commonly 
agreed,  however,  that  it  means  to  make  a  breach  or  opening  (Calvin  :  faire 
bresche  ou  ouverture,  Hendewerk,  Henderson),  and  thereby  take  or  conquer 
(Ewald,  Knobel).  The  creation  *of  tributary  kings  by  conquerors  is  men- 
tioned elsewhere  in  the  sacred  history  (e.  g.  2  Kings  23 :  34.  24 :  17.) 
Son  of  Tabeal,  like  Son  of  Remaliah,  is  commonly  explained  as  a  contemp- 
tuous expression,  implying  obscurity  or  mean  extraction.  But  such  an  ex- 
pression would  hardly  have  been  put  into  the  mouths  of  his  patrons,  unless,  we 
suppose  that  they  selected  him  expressly  on  account  of  his  ignoble  origin  or 
insignificance,  which  is  a  very  improbable  assumption.  They  would  be  far 
more  likely  to  bestow  the  crown  on  some  prince  either  of  Ephraim  or  Syria, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII.  101 


which  some  suppose  to  be  implied  in  the  Syriac  form  of  the  name,  equivalent 
to  the  Hebrew  Tobijdh  (Neh.  2 :  15),  and  analogous  to  Tabrimmon,  from 
whom  Benbadad  king  of  Syria  was  descended  (1  Kings  15:  18).  So  in  Ezra 
4  :  7,  Tabcel  is  Darned  as  one  of  those  who  wrote  to  the  king  in  the  Syrian 
(Aramean)  tongue*  This  whole  speculation,  though  ingenious,  and  illustra- 
ted by  Gesenius  with  a  profusion  of  etymological  learning  (Cbmm.  vol.  1. 
p.  281,  note),  is  probably  fanciful  and  certainly  of  no  exegetical  importance, 
which  last  is  also  true  of  Calvin's  suggestion  that  the  Son  of  Tabeal  may 
have  been  a  disaffected  Jew.  There  is  something  curious  in  the  Jewish  expla- 
nation of  the  name  by  that  form  of  the  cabbala  called  Albam  (because  it  puts 
a  for  /,  b  for  to,  and  so  forth),  as  identical  with  absn  (i.  q.  tr»Mn.)  A  more 
important  observation  is,  that  this  familiar  reference  en  passant  to  the  names 
of  persons  now  forgotten,  as  if  fam  liar  to  contemporary  readers,  is  a  strong 
incidental  proof  of  authenticity. 

V.  7.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  it  shall  not  stand — or  it  shall  not 
arise — and  it  shall  not  be,  or  come  to  pass.  This,  as  was  said  before,  is 
taken  by  Gesenius  and  others  as  the  conclusion  of  a  sentence  beginning  in 
v.  5,  but  may  just  as  naturally#be  explained  as  the  commencement  of  a 
•  new  one.  The  feminine  verbs  may  be  referred  to  counsel  (nss)  under- 
stood or  taken  indefinitely,  which  is  a  common  Hebrew  construction.  (Vide 
supra,  ch.  1  :  6.)  As  c*ip'means  both  to  rise  and  stand,  the  idea  .here  ex- 
pressed may  be  either  that  the  thing  proposed  shall  not-  even  come  into 
existence  (Hitzig),  or  that  it  shall  not  continue  or  be  permanent  (Gesenius, 
Hengstenberg,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  Umbreit).  The  general  sense  is  clear, 
viz.  that  their  design  should  be  defeated.  The  name  rrm ,  being  here  pre- 
ceded by  isHk,  takes  the  vowels  of  B^ffest.  The  accumulation  of  divine 
names  is,  as  usual,  emphatic,  and  seems  here  intended  to  afford  a  pledge  of 
the  event,  derived  from  the  supremacy  and  power  of  the  Being  who 
predicts  it. 

Vs.  8,  9.  The  plans  of  the  enemy  cannot  be  accomplished,  because 
God  has  decreed  that  while  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Israel  continue  to 
exist,  they  shall  remain  without  enlargement,  or  at  least  without  the  addition 
of  Jerusalem  or  Judah  to  their  territories.  It  shall  not  stand  or  come  to 
pass,  because  the  head  (or  capital)  of  Aram  is  Damascus  (and  shall  be  so  still) , 
and  the  head  (chief  or  sovereign)  of  Damascus  is  Rezin  (and  shall  be  so 
still — and  as  for  the  other  power  there  is  as  little  cause  of  fear)  for  in  yet  sixty 
and  five  years  (in  sixty-five  years  more)  shall  Ephraim  be  broken  from  a 
people  (i.  e.  from  being  a  people,  so  as  not  to  be  a  people — and  even  in  the 
mean  time,  it  shall  not  be  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  Judah)  for  the  head 
(or  capital)  of  Ephraim  is  Samaria,  and  the  head  (chief  or  sovereign)   of 


103 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 


Samaria  is  Remaliah's  son.     If  you  will  not  believe   (it  is)  because  you 

are  not  to  be  established.     Here  again  Syria  is  the  prominent  object,  and 

Ephraim  subjoined,  as  if  by  an  afterthought.    The  order  of  ideas  is  that 

Syria  shall  remain  as  it  is,  and  as  for  Ephraim  it  is  soon  to  be  destroyed,  but 

while  it  does  last,  it  shall  remain  as  it  is  likewise  ;  Pekah  shall  never  reign 

.  © 

in  any  other 'capital,  nor  Samaria  be  the  capital  of  any  other  kingdom.     To 
this   natural  expression  of  the  thought  corresponds  the  rhythmical  arrange- 
ment of  the  sentences,  the  first  clause  of  the  eighth  verse  answering  exactly 
to  the  first  clause  of  the  ninth,  while  the  two  last  clauses,  though  dissimilar 
complete  the  measure. 

For  the  head  of  Syria  is  Damascus — 
And  the  head  of  Damascus  Rezin — 

And  in  sixty-five  years  more  etc. 
And  the  head  of  Ephraim  is  Samaria — 
And  the  head  of  Samaria  Remaliah's  son — 
If  ye  will  not  believe  etc. 

Whether  this  be  poetry  or  not,  its  structure  is  as  regular  as  that  of  any  other 
period  of  equal  length  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah.  As  to  the  substance  of  these 
verses,  the  similar  clauses  have  already  be«n  explained,  as  a  prediction  that 
the  two  invading  powers  should  remain  without  enlargement.  The  first  of 
the  uneven  clauses,  i.  e.  the  last  of  v.  8,  adds  to  this  prediction,  that  Ephraim, 
or  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  shall  cease  to  exist  within  a  prescribed  pe- 
riod, which  period  is  so  defined  as  to  include  the  three  successive  strokes  by 
which  that  power  was  annihilated — first,  the  invasion  of  Tiglath-pileset,  two 
or  three  years  after  the  date  of  this  prediction  (2  Kings,  15 :  29.  16 :  9) — 
then,  the  conquest  of  Samaria,  and  the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes,  by  Shal- 
meneser,  about  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  17:  6) — and  finally,  the 
introduction  of  another  race  by  Esar-haddon  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh  (2 
Kings  17:  24.  Ezra  4:2.  2  Chron.  33:  11).  Within  sixty-five  years 
all  these  events  were  to  occur,  and  Ephraim,  in  all  these  senses,  was  to  cease 
to  be  a  people.  It  seems  then  that  the  language  of  this  clause  has  been 
carefully  selected,  so  as  to  include  the  three  events  which  might  be  repre- 
sented as  destructive  of  Ephraim,  while  in  form  it  balances  the  last  clause 
of  the  next  verse,  and  is  therefore  essential  to  the  rhythmical  completeness 
of  the  passage.  And  yet  this  very  clause  has  been  rejected  as  a  gloss,  not 
only  by  Houbigant,  and  others  of  that  school,  but  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig, 
Maurer  and  Knobel,  expressly  on  the  ground  that  it  violates  the  truth  of 
history  and  the  parallelism  of  the  sentence.  In  urging  the  latter  reason 
none  of  these  critics  seems  to  have  observed  that  the  omission  of  the  clause 
would  leave  the  verses  unequal;  while  the  puerile  suggestion  that  the  similar 
clauses  ought  to  come  together,  would  apply  to  any  case  in  Greek,  Latin,  or 
modern  poetry,  where  two  balanced  verses  are  divided  by  a  line  of  different 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII.  109 


:h  or  termination,  as  in  t  h«*  St  dixit  iV/a/cr  or  Cow per's  Ode  to  Friendship. 
Such  an  objection  to  the  clause  is  especially  surprising  on  the  part  of  those 
who  insist  upon  subjecting  even  Hebrew  prose  to  the  principles,  if  not  the 
rules,  of  Greek  and  Latin  prosody. — As  to  the  more  serious  historical  objec- 
tion, it  is  applicable  only  to  the  theory  of  Usher,  Lowth,  Hengstenberg,  and 
Henderson,  that  the  conquest  of  Israel  by  Tiglath-pileser  and  Shalmen- 
eser  are  excluded  from  the  prophecy,  and  that  it  has  relation  solely  to 
what  took  place  under  Esar-haddon  ;  whereas  all  three  are  included.  If  a 
historian  should  say  that  in  one  and  twenty  years  from  the  beginning  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  the  Emperor  Napoleon  had  ceased  to  be,  he  could 
not  be  charged  with  the  error  of  reckoning  to  the  time  of  his  death,  instead  of  ■ 
his  first  or  second  abdication,  because  all  these  would  be  really  included, 
and  the  larger  term  chosen  only  for  the  purpose  of  embracing  every  sense  in 
which  the  Emperor  ceased  to  be.  .So  in  the  case  before  us,  the  invasion  by 
Tiglath-pileser,  and  the  deportation  by  Shalmeneser  are  included,  but  the 
term  of  sixty-five  years  is  assigned,  because  with  it  expired  every  possible 
pretension  of  the  ten  tribes  to  be  reckoned  as  a  state  or  nation,  though  the 
real  downfall  of  the  government  had  happened  many  years  before.  Nor  is 
it  improbable  that  if  the  shorter  periods  of  three  or  twenty  years  had  been 
named,  the  same  class  of  critics  would  have  made  the  exclusion  of  the  wind- 
ing up  under  Esar-haddon  a  ground  of  similar  objection  to  the  clause. 
The  propriety  of  including  this  event  is  clear  from  the  repeated  mention  of 
Israel  as  a  people  still  subsisting  until  it  took  place  (2  Kings  23 :  19,  20. 
2  Chr.  34:  6,  7.  35:  18),  and  from  the  fact  that  Esar-haddon  placed  his 
colonists  in  the  cities  of  Samaria,  instead  of  the  children  of  Israel  (2  Kings 
27  :  24),  thereby  completing  their  destruction  as  a  people.  The  same 
considerations  furnish  an  answer  to  the  objection  that  the  time  fixed  for  the 
overthrowr  of  Ephraim  is  too  remote  to  allay  the  fears  of  Ahaz ;  not  to  mention 
that  this  was  only  one  design  of  the  prediction,  and  that  the  encouragement 
was  meant  to  be  afforded  by  what  follows,  and  which  seems  to  have  been 
added  for  the  very  purpose,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  Ephraim  is  to  last  but  sixty- 
five  years  at  most,  and  even  while  it  does  last  th&hezd  etc'  That  the  order 
of  the  numerals,  sixty  and  Jive  instead  offve  and  sixty  is  no  proof  of  later 
origin  (Gesenius),  may  be  inferred  from  the  occurrence  of  the  same  colloca- 
tion at  least  three  times  in  Genesis  (4:  24.  18:  28.  46:  15.)  The 
llcged  inconsistency  between  this  clause  and  v.  16  rests  on  a  gratuitous 
sumption  that  the  desolation  threatened  there  and  the  destruction  here 
e  perfectly  identical.  To  allege  that  Ti*>  is  elsewhere  used  to  denote  the 
ecise  time  of  an  event  (Gen.  40:  13,  19.  Jos.  1  :  11.  3:  2.  Jer.  28: 
,  11),  is  only  to  allege  that  a  general  expression  admits  of  a  specific  ap- 
lication.  The  Hebrew  phrase  corresponds  exactly  to  the  English  phrase 
in  sixty-five  years  more,  and  like  it  may  either  be   applied  to  something 


110  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

happening  at  the  end  of  that  period,  or  to  something  happening  at  any  time 
within  it,  or  to  both,  which  is  really  its  application  here.  To  the  objection, 
that  the  precise  date  of  the  immigration  under  Esar-haddon  is  a  matter  of 
conjecture,  the  answer  is,  that  since  this  event  and  the  sixty-fifth  year  from 
the  date  of  the  prediction,  both  fall  within  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  the  suppo- 
sition that  they  coincide  is  less  improbable  than  the  supposition  that  they  do 
not.  To  reject  the  clause  on  such  a  ground  is  to  assume  that  whatever  is  not 
proved  (or  rather  twice  proved)  must  be  false,  however  probable.  Enough 
has  now  been  said,  not  only  to  vindicate  the  clause  as  genuine,  but  to  preclude 
the  necessity  of  computing  the  sixty-five  years  from  any  other  period  than  the 
date  of  the  prediction,  as  for  instance  from  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II.  with 
Cocceius,  or  from  the  leprosy  of  Uzziah  with  the  Rabbins,  both  which  hypoth- 
eses, if  necessary,  might  be  plausibly  defended.  It  also  supersedes  the  necessity 
of  emendation  in  the  text.  Grotius  and  Cappellus  drop  the  plural  termination 
of  D^iUttJ  and  thus  convert  it  into  six.  But  even  if  Isaiah  could  have  written 
six  and  Jive  instead  of  eleven,  the  latter  number  would  be  too  small,  as  Cap- 
pellus in  his  computation  overlooks  an  interregnum  which  the  best  chronol- 
ogers  assume  between  Pekah  and  Hoshea.  See  Gesenius  in  loc.  Vitringa 
supposes  warn  d-hew  to  have  arisen  out  of  warn  %©tB  (a  common  abbreviation 
in  Hebrew  manuscripts),  and  this  out  of  warn  '■>  xaw,  six,  ten,  and  Jive,  the 
exact  number  of  years  between  the  prophecy  and  Shalmaneser's  conquest, 
viz.  sixteen  of  Ahaz  and  five  of  Hezekiah,  which  he  therefore  supposes  to  be 
separately  stated.  But  even  if  letters  were  used  for  ciphers  in  Isaiah's  time, 
which  is  highly  improbable,  it  is  still  more  improbable  that  both  modes  of 
notation  would  have  been  mixed  up  in  a  single  number.  Gesenius  sneers  at 
Vitringa's  thanking  God  for  the  discovery  of  this  emendation  ;  but  it  is  more 
than  matched  by  two  of  later  date  and  German  origin.  Steudel  proposes  to 
read  SibaS  (for  rutfi)  in  the  sense  of  repeatedly,  and  to  supply  days  after  sixty- 
Jive  !  Hendewerk  more  boldly  reads  nsti  too'rn  trtfta  mrin  ivhile  the  robbers 
and  the  murderer  are  a  sleep  (i.  e.  asleep)  !  This  he  thinks  so  schon  und 
herrlich,  and  the  light  which  it  sheds  so  ganz  wunderbar,  that  he  ev*en 
prefers  it  to  Hensler's  proposition  to  read  six  or  Jive  (i.  q.  five  or  six,)  i.  e. 
a  few.  Luzzatto  gives  this  latter  sense  to  the  common  text,  which  he  ex- 
plains as  a  round  number,  or  rather  as  two  round  numbers,  sixty  being  used 
in  the  Talmud  indefinitely  for  a  large  number,  and  Jive  even  in  Scripture  for 
a  small  one.  Ewald  seems  willing  to  admit  that  sixty-Jive  itself  is  here  put 
as  a  period  somewhat  shorter  than  the  term  of  human  life,  but  rejects  the 
clause  as  a  quotation  from  an  older  prophecy,  transferred  from  the  margin  to 
the  text  of  Isaiah.  Besides  these  emendations  of  the  text,  the  view  which 
has  been  taken  of  the  prophecy  enables  us  to  dispense  with  various  forced 
constructions  of  the  first  clause — such  as  Aben  Ezra's — ( it  shall  not  come 
to  pass  (with  respect  to  you)  but  (with  respect  to)  the  head  of  Syria  (which 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  VII.  Ill 


is)  Damascus  etc'  Or  this — 'though  the  bead  of  Syria  is  Damascus  (a  g* 
city),  and  the  bead  of  Damascus  is  Rezin  (a  great  prince),  yet  in  sixty-five 
years  etc.*  Hitzig  reverses  this,  and  makes  it  an  expression  of  contempt — 
'for  the  head  of  Syria  is  (only)  Damascus,  and  the  head  of  Damascus  (only) 
Rezin  (a  smoking  fee-brand.)' — The  last  clause  of  the  verse  has  also  been 
variously  construed.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  a  threatening  or  indignant 
pause  in  the  midst  of  it — '  If  ye  will  not  believe — for  (I  see  that)  ye  will  not 
believe.'  Grotius  makes  it  interrogative — '  will  ye  not  believe,  unless  ye 
are  confirmed'  or  assured  by  a  sign  ?  The  construction  now  most  commonly 
adopted  makes  ns  a  particle  of  asseveration  (Rosenmiiller,  Henderson)  or 
even  of  swearing  (Maurer),  or  supposes  it  to  introduce  the  apodosis  and  to  be 
equivalent  to  then  (Gesenius).  Luther's  version  of  the  clause,  thus  understood, 
has  been  much  admired,  as  a  successful  imitation  of  the  paronomasia  in  He- 
brew :  Glaubet  ihr  nicht,  so  bleibct  ihr  nicht.  This  explanation  of  the 
clause  is  strongly  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  2  Chron.  20 :  20  ;  but  another 
equally  natural  is  the  one  already  given  in  translation — '  if  ye  do  not  believe 
(it  is)  because  ye  are  not  to  be  established.'  For  other  constructions  and 
conjectural  emendations  of  the  several  clauses,  see  Gesenius  and  Rosen- 
muller  on  the  passage. 

V.  10.  And  he  (i.  e.  God,  by  the  mouth  of  Isaiah)  added  to  speak 
unto  Ahaz,  saying — which,  according  to  usage,  may  either  mean  that  he 
spoke  again,  on  a  different  occasion,  or  that  he  spoke  further,  on  the  same 
occasion,  which  last  is  the  meaning  here.  This  verse,  it  is  true,  is  supposed 
to  commence  a  new  division  of  the  prophecy  by  Ewald,  and  an  entirely 
distinct  prediction  by  Hendewerk,  who  connects  it  with  the  close  of  the 
fifth  chapter,  and  by  Henderson,  who  regards  all  that  follows  as  having 
reference  to  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  Assyria.  A  sufficient  refutation  of 
the  two  last  hypotheses  is  involved  in  the  admission  made  by  both  these 
writers,  that  the  offer  of  a  sign  has  reference  to  nothing  in  the  context,  but 
to  something  not  recorded ;  whereas  it  was  naturally  called  forth  by  the  in- 
credulity which  some  suppose  to  have  been  betrayed  by  the  king's 
silence  (Hengstenberg)  or  his  looks  (Rosenmiiller),  and  which  is  certainly 
referred  to  in  the  last  clause  of  v.  9. 

V.  11.  Ask  for  thee  (i.  e.  for  thy  own  satisfaction)  a  sign  from  Jehovah 
thy  God  (literally  from  with  him,  i.  e.  from  his  presence  and  his  power) — 
ask  deep  or  high  above — or  make  deep  thy  request  or  make  it  high — i.  e. 
ask  it  either  above  or  below.  A  sign  is  not  necessarily  a  miracle,  nor 
necessarily  a  prophecy,  but  a  sensible  pledge  of  the  truth  of  something  else, 
whether  present,  past,  or  future  ;  sometimes  consisting  in  a  miracle  (Isai.  38 : 
8.  Judg.  6 :  37.  Ex.  4  :  8),  but  sometimes  in  a  mere  prediction  (Ex.  3:12. 


112  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  VII 


1  Sam.  2  :  34.  2  Kings  19  :  29),  and  sometimes  only  in  a  symbol,  espe- 
cially a  symbolical  name  or  action  (Isai.  38:  18.  20:  3.  Ezek.  4:8). 
The  sign  here  offered  is  a  proof  of  Isaiah's  divine  legation,  which  Ahaz 
seemed  to  doubt.  He  is  allowed  to  choose,  not  only  the  place  of  its 
exhibition  (Pluschke),  but  the  sign  itself.  The  offer  is  a  general  one,  inclu- 
ding all  the  kinds  of  signs  which  have, been  mentioned,  though  the  only  one 
which  would  have  answered  the  purpose  of  accrediting  the  Prophet,  was  a 
present  miracle,  as  in  the  case  of  Moses  (Ex.  4:  30).  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
and  Theodotion,  seem  to  have  read  h|fetvj  to  the  grave  or  lower  world  ([id&v- 
rov  £tg  adrjv),  which  is  adopted  by  Jerome,  Michaelis,  Lowth,  and  also  by 
Ewald  but  without  a  change  of  text,  as  he  supposes  rtxtt)  to  be  simply  a 
euphonic  variation  for  h^kflj  intended  to  assimilate  it  to  H^Q^.  Thus  under- 
stood, the  word  may  refer  to  the  opening  of  the  earth  or  the  raising  of  the 
dead,  in  opposition  to  a  miracle  in  heaven.  But  as  heaven  is  not  particularly 
mentioned,  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  old  explanation  of  «"ibxu3 
as  a  paragogic  imperative  (comp.  Dan.  9:  19.  B.  41  :  5),  signifying  ask 
thou.  The  two  preceding  verbs  may  then  be  taken  also  as  imperatives,  go 
deep,  ask,  i.  e.  in  asking,  or  as  infinitives  equivalent  to  adyerbs,  ask  deep,  ask 
high  ;,  or  the  construction  may  be  simplified  still  further  by  explaining  nbstei 
as  a  noun  equivalent  to  «"&ati  and  governed  directly  by  the  two  verbs  as  im- 
peratives— make  deep  (thy)  request,  make  (it)  high.  There  may  either 
be  a  reference  to  the  distinction  between  signs  in  heaven  and  signs  on  earth 
(Matt.  16:  1),  which  Jerome  illustrates  by  the 'case  of  the  Egyptian 
plagues,  or  the  words  may  be  more  indefinitely  understood  as  meaning  any 
where,  up  or  down,  above  or  below  (Calvin).  The  phrase  thy  God  is 
emphatic  and  intended  to  remind  Ahaz  of  his  official  relation  to  Jehovah, 
and  as  it  were  to  afford  him  a  last  opportunity  of  profiting  by  the  connexion. 

V.  12.  And  Ahaz  said,  I  will  not  ask,  and  I  will  not  tempt  Jehovah. 
Some  regard  this  as  a  contemptuous  irony,  implying  a  belief  that  God  would 
not  be  able  to  perform  his  promise  (Grotius,  Gesenius  etc.)  or  a  disbelief 
in  the  existence  of  a  personal  God  (Umbreit.)  We  have  no  reason  to  doubt, 
however,  that  Ahaz  believed  in  the  existence  of  Jehovah,  at  least  as  one 
among  many  gods,  as  a  local  and  national  if  not  a  supreme  deity.  It  is  better, 
therefore,  to  understand  the  words  as  a  hypocritical  excuse  for  not  obeying 
the  command,  with  obvious  allusion  to  the  prohibition  in  Deut.  6 :  6,  which 
is  of  course  inapplicable  to  the  case  of  one  who  is  exhorted  to  choose.  His 
refusal  probably  arose  not  from  speculative  doubts  or  politic  considerations, 
but  from  the  state  of  his  affections,  his  aversion  to  the  service  of  Jehovah 
and  his  predilection  for  that  of  other  gods,  perhaps  combined  with  a  belief 
that  in  this  case  human  aid  would  be  sufficient  and  a  divine  interposition 
superfluous ;  to  which  may  be  added  a  specific  expectation  of  assistance 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VII.  113 

from  Assyria,  for  which  he  bad  perhaps  already  sued  (2  Kings  16:  7-9). 
To  tempt  God  is  not  to  try  him  in  the  way  of  trusting  him  (lloheisel),  nor 
simply  to  call  in  question  his  power,  knowledge,  or  veracity  (Gesenius,  Hit- 
zig),  hut  to  put  him  practically  to  the  test.  The  character  of  Ahaz  is  illus- 
trated by  a  comparison  of  this  refusal  with  the  thankful  acceptance  of  such 
signs  by  others,  and  especially  by  his  own  son  Hezekiah,  to  whom,  as 
Jerome  observes,  signs  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth  were  granted. 

a 

V.  13.  At  first  Ahaz  seemed  to  doubt  only  the  authority  and  divine 
legation  of  the  Prophet ;  but  his  refusal  to  accept  the  offered  attestation  was 
an  insult  to  God  himself,  and  is  therefore  indignantly  rebuked  by  the  Pro- 
phet. And  he  said,  hear,  I  pray  you,  oh  house  of  David !  is  it  too  little 
for  you  (is  it  not  enough  for  you)  to  ivcary  men  (i.  e.  to  try  men's  patience) 
that  you  (must)  weary  (or  try  the  patience  of)  my  God  1  The  meaning  is 
not  merely  that  it  is  worse  to  weary  God  than  man  (Chrysostom),  or  that 
it  was  not  man  but  God  whom  they  were  wearying  (Jerome)  ;  but  that 
having  first  wearied  man  i.  e.  the  Prophet  by  disputing  his  commission,  they 
were  now  wearying  God,  by  refusing  the  offered  attestation,  rviabn  is  not 
to  regard  as  weak  or  impotent  (Kimchi),  but  to  try  or  exhaust  the  patience 
of  another.  The  plural  form  of  the  address  does  not  imply  that  the  Prophet 
turned  away  from  Ahaz  to  others  (Jerome),  but  that  members  of  his  family 
and  court  were,  in  the  Prophet's  view,  already  implicated  in  his  unbelief. 

V.  14.  The*  king  having  refused  to  ask  a  sign,  the  Prophet  gives  him 
one,  by  renewing  the  promise  of  deliverance  (vs.  8,  9)  and  connecting  it 
with  the  birth  of  a  child,  whose  significant  name  is  made  a  symbol  of  the 
divine  interposition,  and  his  progress  a  measure  of  the  subsequent  events. 
Instead  of  saying  that  God  would  be  present  to  deliver  them,  he  says  the 
child  shall  be  called  Immanuel  (God-with-us)  ;  instead  of  mentioning  a  term 
of  years,  he  says,  before  the  child  is  able  to  distinguish  good  from  evil ; 
instead  of  saying  that  until  that  time  the  land  shall  lie  waste,  he  represents 
the  child  as  eating  curds  and  honey,  spontaneous  products,  here  put  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  fruits  of  cultivation.  At  the  same  time,  the  form  of  expression 
is  descriptive.  Instead  of  saying  simply  that  the  child  shall  experience  all 
this,  he  represents  its  birth  and  infancy  as  actually  passing  in  his  sight ;  he 
sees  the  child  brought  forth  and  named  Immanuel ;  he  sees  the  child  eating 
curds  and  honey  till  a  certain  age.  Therefore  (because  you  have  refused 
to  choose)  the  Lord  himself  will  give  you  a  sign.  Behold!  the  virgin 
pregnant  and  bringing  forth  a  son,  and  she  calls  his  name  Immanuel  (God 
with  us) — curds  and  honey  shall  he  eat  (because  the  land  lies  waste)  until  he 
shall  know  (Jiow)  to  reject  the  evil  and  to  choose  the  good  (but  no  longer)  ; 
for  before  the  child  shall  know  (hoiv)  to  reject  the  evil  and  to  choose  the 

8 


114  ISAIAH.   CHAP.  VII. 

good,  the  land,  of  whose  two  Icings  thou  art  afraid  (i.  e.  Syria  and  Israel), 
shall  le  forsaken  (i.  e.  desolate),  which  of  course  implies  the  previous  deliv- 
erance of  Judah. — All  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  that  these  three 
verses  contain  a  threatening  of  destruction  to  the  enemies  of  Judah,  if  not  a 
direct  promise  of  deliverance,  and  that  this  event  is  connected,  in  some  way, 
with  the  birth  of  a  child,  as  the  sign  or  pledge  of  its  certain  occurrence. 
But  what  child  is  meant,  or  who  is  the  Immanuel  here  predicted  ?  The 
various  answers* to  .this  question  may  be  all  reduced  to  three  fundamental 
hypotheses,  each  of  which  admits  of  several  minor  variations. 

I.  The  first  hypothesis  is  that  the  only  birth  and  infancy  referred  to  in 
these  verses  are  the  birth  and  infancy  of  a  child  born  (or  supposed  to  be  born), 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  and  in   the  days  of  Isaiah  himself.     The 
unessential  variations,  of  which  this  hypothesis  is  susceptible,  have  reference 
chiefly  to  the  question  what  particular  child  is  intended.     It  The  Jews  of 
old  supposed  it  to  be  Hezekiah ;  but  this  was  exploded  by  Jerome's  sugges- 
tion, that  he  was  already  at  least  nine  years  old,  since  his  father  reigned  but 
sixteen  years,  and  he  succeeded  him  at  twenty-five  (2  Kings  16 :  2,  18 :  2). 
2.  Kimchi  and  Abarbenel  suppose  Immanuel  to  be  a  younger  son  of  Ahaz, 
by  a  second  marriage.     3.  Isenbiehl,  Bauer,  Cube,  Steudel,  and  Hitzig,  un- 
derstand by  ft*2wi,  a  woman  who  was  present,  and  at  whom   the  Prophet 
pointed.     4.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  Paulus,   Hensler,  Ammon,  under- 
stand the  Prophet  to  predict  not  a  real  but  an  ideal  birth,  as  if  he  had  said, 
should  one  now  a  virgin  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  she  might  call  his  name 
Immanuel,  etc.     5.  Aben  Ezra,  Jarchi,  Faber,  Pluschke*,  Gesenius,  Mau- 
rer,  Hendewerk,  Knobel,  suppose  him  to  be  speaking  of  his  own  wife,  and 
the  birth  of  his  own  son  ;  and  as  Shearjashub  was  already  born,  Gesenius 
assumes   a  second  marriage  of  the  Prophet,  and  supposes  two  events  to  be 
predicted  :  first,  the  deliverance  of  Judah  at  the  birth  of  the  child,  and  then 
the  desolation  of  Syria  and  Israel  before  he  should  be  able  to  distinguish 
good  and  evil.     To  this  last  supposition,  it  is  justly  objected  by  Hengsten- 
berg  that  it  assumes  too  great  an  interval  between  the  deliverance  of  Judah 
and  the  desolation  of  the  other  countries,  as  well  as  between  the  former  and 
the  resumption  of  agricultural  employments.     It  is  besides  unnecessary,  as 
the  interposition  denoted  by  the  name  Immanuel  need  not  be  restricted  to 
the  time  of  the  child's  birth,  and  as  the  desolation  of  Syria  and  Israel  is  said 
to  take  place  before,  but  not  immediately  before  the  child's  attaining  to  a 
certain  age ;  to  which  it  may  be  added  that  the  age  itself  is  left  somewhat 
indefinite.     But  besides  these  objections  to  Gesenius's  assumption  of  a  two- 
fold prophecy,  his  whole  hypothesis,  with  all  the   others  which  have  been 
enumerated,  except  perhaps  the  fourth,  may  be  justly  charged  with  gratui- 
tously assuming  facts  of  which  we  have  no  evidence,  and  which  are  not  ne- 
cessary to  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  ;  such  as  the  second  marriage  of 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VII.  115 

Ahaz,  or  that  of  Isaiah,  or  the  presence  of  a  pregnant  woman,  or  the  Pro- 
phet's pointing  at  her.     A  further  ohjection  to  all  the  variations  of  this  first 
hypothesis  is,  that  although  they  may  afford  a  sign,  in  one  of  the  senses  of 
that  term,  to  wit,  that  of  an  emblem  or  symbol,  they  do  not  afford  such  a 
sign  as  the  context  would   lead  us   to  expect.     Ahaz  had  been  offered  the 
privilege  of  choosing  any  sign  whatever,  in  heaven  or  on  earth.     Had  he  ac- 
tually chosen  one,  it  would  no  doubt  have  been  something  out  of  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  nature,  as  in   the  case  of  Gideon  (Judges  6 :  37-40)  and 
Hezekiah  (Isai.  38:  7,  8).     On  his  refusal  to  choose,  a  sign  is  given  him 
unasked,  and  although  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  it  was  precisely 
such  as  he  would  have  selected — since  the  object  was  no  longer  simply  to 
remove  his  doubts,  but  to  verify  the  promise  and  to  mark  the  event  when  it 
occurred  as  something  which  had  been  predicted — yet  it. seems  very  impro- 
bable that  after  such  an  offer,  the  sign  bestowed  would  be  merely  a  thin  or  of 
every-day  occurrence,  or  at  most  the  application   of  a  symbolical   name. 
This  presumption  is  strengthened  by  the  solemnity  with  which  the  Prophet 
speaks  of  the  predicted  birth,  not  as  a  usual  and  natural  event,  but  as  some- 
thing which   excites  his  own  astonishment,  as   he  beholds   it  in  prophetic 
vision.     This  may  prove  nothing  by  itself,  but  is  significant  when  taken  in 
connexion  with  the  other  reasons.     The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the 
address  to  Immanuel,  in  ch.  8  :  8,  and   the  allusion  to  the  name  in  v.  11, 
which,  although  they  may  admit  of  explanation   in  consistency  with  this 
first  hypothesis,  agree  much  better  with  the  supposition  that  the  prophecy 
relates  to  something  more  than  a  natural  and  ordinary  birth.     A  still  stronger 
reason  for  the  same  conclusion  is  afforded  by  the  parallel  passage  in  ch.  9  : 
5,  6,  occurring  in  the  same  connected  series    of  prophecies.     There,  as 
here,  the  birth  of  a  child  is  given  as  a  pledge  of  safety  and  deliverance,  but 
with  the  important  addition  of  a  full  description,  which,  as  we  shall  see  be- 
low, is  wholly  inapplicable  to  any  ordinary  human  child,  however  high  in 
rank  or  full  of  promise.     If  led  by  these  remarkable  coincidences  to  exam- 
ine more  attentively  the  terms  of  the  prophecy  itself,  we  find  the  mother  of 
the  promised  child  described,  not  as   a   woman  or  as  any  particular  woman 
merely,  but  as  fi^sn  a  term  which  has  been  variously  derived  from   db*   to 
conceal,  and  from  jJLc.  to  grow  up,  but  which,  in   the  six  places  where  it 
occurs    elsewhere,  is  twice  applied   to  young  unmarried  females  certainly 
(Gen.  24 :  43,  Ex.  2 :  8),  and  twice  most  probably  (Ps.  68 :  25,  Sol.  S.  1  : 
3),  while  in  the  two  remaining  cases  (Sol.  S.  1 :  8,  Prov.  30:  19)  this  ap- 
plication is  at  least  as  probable  as  any  other.     It  would  therefore  naturally 
suggest  the  idea  of  a  virgin,  or  at  least  of  an  unmarried  woman.     It  is  said 
indeed,  that  if  this  had  been  intended,  the  word  hfettta  would  have  been  em- 
ployed ;  but  even  that  word  is  not  invariably  used  in  its  strict  sense  (see 
Deut.  22:  19,  Joel  1  :  8),  so  that  there  would  still  have  been  room  for  the 


116  ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VII. 


same  cavils,  and  perhaps  for  the  assertion  that  the  idea  of  a  virgin  could  not 
be  expressed  except  by  a  periphrasis.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  a 
virgin  or  unmarried  woman  is  designated  here  as  distinctly  as  she  could  be 
by  a  single  word.  But  why  should  this  description  be  connected  with  a 
fact  which  seems  to  render  it  inapplicable,  that  of  parturition  ?  That  the 
word  means  simply  a  young  woman,  whether  married  or  unmarried,  a  virgin 
or  a  mother,  is  a  subterfuge  invented  by  the  later  Greek  translators  who,  as 
Justin  Martyr  tells  us,  read  veang,  instead  of  the  old  version  Tidgfterog,  which 
had  its  rise  before  the  prophecy  became  a  subject  of  dispute  between  the 
Jews  and  Christians.  That  the  word  denotes  one  who  is  a  virgin  or  unmar- 
ried now,  without  implying  that  she  is  to  remain  so,  is  certainly  conceiva- 
ble ;  but,  as  was  said  before,  its  use  in  this  connexion,  especially  when  added 
to  the  other  reasons  previously  mentioned,  makes  it,  to  say  the  least,  ex- 
tremely probable  that  the  event  foretold  is  something  more  than  a  birth  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  So  too,  the  name  lmmanuel,  although  it 
might  be  used  to  signify  God's  providential  presence  merely  (Ps.  46  :  8,  12, 
89 :  25,  Josh.  1 :  5,  Jer.  1  :  8,  Isai.  43 :  2),  has  a  latitude  and  pregnancy 
of  meaning  which  can  scarcely  be  fortuitous,  and  which,  combined  with  all 
the  rest,  makes  the  conclusion  almost  unavoidable,  that  it  was  here  intended 
to  express  a  personal  as  well  as  a  providential  presence.  If  to  this  we  add 
the  early  promise  of  salvation  through  the  seed  of  the  woman  (Gen.  3  :  15), 
rendered  more  definite  by  later  revelations,  and  that  remarkable  expression 
of  Isaiah's  contemporary  prophet  Micah  (5:  2),  until  the  time  that  she 
which  travaileth  hath  brought  forth,  immediately  following  the  promise  of 
a  ruler,  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem,  but  whose  goings  forth  have  been  of  old, 
from  everlasting — the  balance  of  probabilities,  as  furnished  by  the  Old  Tes- 
tament exclusively,  preponderates  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  supposition, 
that  Isaiah's  words  had  reference  to  a  miraculous  conception  and  nativity. 
When  we  read,  therefore,  in  the  gospel  of  Matthew,  that  Jesus  Christ  was 
actually  born  of  a  virgin,  and  that  all  the  circumstances  of  his  birth  came  to 
pass  that  this  very  prophecy  might  be  fulfilled,  it  has  less  the  appearance  of 
an  unexpected  application,  than  of  a  conclusion  rendered  necessary,  by  a 
series  of  antecedent  facts  and  reasons,  the  last  link  in  a  long  chain  of  intima- 
tions more  or  less  explicit.  The  same  considerations  seem  to  show  that  the 
prophecy  is  not  merely  transferred  or  accommodated  to  another  subject  by 
the  evangelist,  which  is  moreover  clear  from  the  emphatic  form  of  the  cita- 
tion (jovto  oXov  yiyovev  iva  TtXtjQmd-rj  x.  t.  A.),  making  it  impossible  to  prove 
the  existence  of  any  quotation,  in  the  proper  sense,  if  this  be  not  one,  and 
from  the  want  of  any  similarity  between  the  two  events,  viz.  a  natural  and 
miraculous  conception,  upon  which  a  mere  illustrative  accommodation  of  the 
words  could  have  been  founded.  The  idea,  insidiously  suggested  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  that  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  may  be  spurious,  is  so  far 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.    VII.  117 


from  deriving  any  countenance  from  this  application  of  the  prophecy,  that 
on  the  contrary  its  wonderful  agreement  with  the  scattered  but  harmonious 
intimations  of  the  Old  Testament,  too  numerous  and  too  detached  to  be  for- 
tuitous, affords  a  strong  though  incidental  proof  that  these  very  chapters  are 
genuine  and  authentic.  The  rejection  of  Matthew's  authority  in  toto,  as  an 
interpreter  of  the  prediction,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  proofs  of  his 
inspiration  drawn  from  other  quarters,  but  leaves  unexplained  the  remarka- 
ble coincidence  between  his  interpretation  and  the  original  form  of  expres- 
sion, the  context,  and  the  parallel  passages.  That  these  should  all  conspire 
to  recommend  an  ignorant  or  random  explanation  of  the  prophecy,  is  mora 
incredible,  than  that  the  explanation  should  be  true,  and  the  words  of  Isaiah 
a  prediction  of  something  more  than  the  birth  of  a  real  or  ideal  child,  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature,  and  in  the  days  of  the  Prophet  himself.  The 
question,  however,  still  arises,  how  the  birth  of  Christ,  if  here  predicted,  is 
to  be  connected  with  the  promise  made  to  Ahaz,  as  a  sign  of  the  event,  or 
as  a  measure  of  the  time  of  its  fulfilment  ? 

II.  The  second  hypothesis  removes  this  difficulty  by  supposing  that  the 
prophecy  relates  to  two  distinct  births  and  two  different  children.  Of  this 
general  theory  there1  are  two  important  modifications.  1.  The  first  supposes 
one  child  to  be  mentioned  in  v.  14„and  another  in  v.  16.  As  to  v.  15, 
some  connect  it  with  the  one  before  and  some  with  the  one  after  it.  Thus 
Junius  understands  v.  14  to  refer  to  Christ,  but  vs.  15,  16  to  Shearjashub  ; 
Usher  applies  vs.  14,  15  to  Christ,  and  v.  16  to  Shearjashub  ;  Calvin  vs. 
14,  15  to  Christ,  but  v.  16  to  a  child,  i.  e.,  any  child  indefinitely.  They 
all  agree  that  the  prophecy  contains  two  promises :  first,  that  Christ 
should  be  born  of  a  virgin,  and  then,  that  Judah  should  be  delivered  before 
Shearjashub  (or  before  any  child  born  within  a  certain  time)  could  distin- 
guish good  from  evil.  To  such  of  these  interpretations  as  refer  v.  15  to  the 
infancy  of  Christ,  it  may  be  objected  that  they  put  a  sense  upon  that  verse 
which  its  expressions  will  not  bear,  and  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  use 
of  the  same  terms  in  v.  22.  It  will  be  seen  below  that  the  eating  of  curds 
and  honey  is  predicted  as  a  sign  of  general  desolation,  or  at  least  of  inter- 
rupted tillage.  Another  objection  which  applies  to  all  the  forms  of  this  in- 
terpretation is  the  sudden  change  of  subject,  in  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth 
verse,  from  Immanuel  to  Shearjashub,  or  to  any  child  indefinitely.  Nothing 
but  extreme  exegetical  necessity  could  justify  the  reference  of  vs.  15,  16,  to» 
any  person  not  referred  to  in  v.  14.  2.  This  difficulty  is  avoided  in  the 
second  modification  of  the  general  hypothesis  that  the  passage  (as  a  whole) 
refers  to  two  distinct  births  and  to  different  children,  by  assuming  that  both 
are  mentioned  in  the  fourteenth  verse  itself.  This  is  the  supposition  of  a 
double  sense,  though  some  refuse  to  recognize  it  by  that  name.  The  essence 
of  the  theory  is  this,  that  while  v.  14,  in  its  obvious  and  primary  sense, 


118  ISAIAH,  CHAk  VII. 

relates  to  the  birth  of  a  child  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  its  terms  are 
so  selected  as  to  be  descriptive,  in  a  higher  sense,  of  the  miraculous  nativity 
of  Christ.  This  theory  is  mentioned  by  Jerome  as  the  opinion  of  a  certain 
Judaizing  Christian,  whom  he  does  not  name  (quidam  de  nostris  judaizans), 
and  by  Calvin,  as  a  compromise  between  the  orthodox  and  Jewish  expositions, 
but  has  since  had  many  eminent  and  able  advocates.  The  minor  variations  of 
this  general  hypothesis  have  reference  chiefly  to  the  particular  child  intended 
by  the  prophecy  in  its  lower  sense,  whether  a  son  of  Isaiah  himself,  as 
Grotius,  Clericus,  and  Barnes  suppose,  or  any  child  born  within  a  certain 
time,  as  Lowth,  with  more  probability,  assumes.  The  advantage  of  these 
interpretations  is  that  they  seem  to  account  for  the  remarkable  expressions 
which  the  prophet  uses,  as  if  to  intimate  a  deeper  meaning  than  the  primary 
and  obvious  one,  and  at  the  same  time  answer  the  conditions,  both  of  the 
context  in  Isaiah,  and  of  the  application  in  Matthew,  giving  a  sign  analo- 
gous to  others  given  before  and  after  by  this  very  prophet  (ch.  7 :  3,  8:  2), 
and  at  the  same  time  furnishing  believers  with  a  striking  prophecy  of  the 
Messiah.  The  objections  to  it  are  its  complexity,  and  what  seems  to  be  the 
arbitrary  nature  of  the  assumption  upon  which  it  rests.  It  seems  to  be  a 
feeling  common  to  learned  and  unlearned  readers,  that  although  a  double 
sense  is  not  impossible,  and  must  in  certain  cases  be  assumed,  it  is  unrea- 
sonable to  assume  it,  when  any  other  explanation  is  admissible.  The 
improbability  in  this  case  is  iucreased  by  the  want  of  similarity  be- 
tween the  two  events,  supposed  to  be  predicted  in  the  very  same  words,  the 
one  miraculous,  the  other  not  only  natural  but  common  and  of  every  day 
occurrence.  That  two  such  occurrences  should  be  described  in  the  same 
words,  simply  because  they  were  both  signs  or  pledges  of  a  promise,  though 
not  impossible,  can  only  be  made  probable  by  strong  corroborating  proofs, 
especially  if  any  simpler  mode  of  exposition  be  at  all  admissible.  Another 
objection,  which  lies  equally  against  this  hypothesis  and  the  one  first  men- 
tioned is,  that  in  its  primary  and  lower  sense  it  does  not  afford  such  a  sign 
as  the  context  and  the  parallel  passages  would  lead  us  to  expect,  unless  we 
suppose  that  the  higher  secondary  sense  was  fully  understood  at  the  time  of 
the  prediction,  and  in  that  case,  though  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  from  a 
virgin  would  be  doubtless  a  sufficient  sign,  it  would,  for  that  very  reason, 
seem  to  make  the  lower  one  superfluous.  Dathe's  courageous  supposition, 
that  the  primary  reference  is  to  a  miraculous  conception  and  birth  in  the 
days  of  Isaiah,  only  aggravates  the  difficulty  which  it  would  diminish, 
though  it  certainly  escapes  the  force  of  some  of  the  objections  to  the  suppo- 
sition of  a  double  sense,  to  wit,  those  founded  on  the  inadequacy  of  the  sign 
and  the  dissimilarity  of  the  events.  None  of  these  reasons  seem  however  to 
be  decisive  against  the  supposition  of  a  double  sense,  as  commonly  under- 
stood, unless  there  be  some  other  way  in  which  its  complexity  and  arbi- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VII.  110 

trary  character  m;iy  be  avoided,  and  at  the  same  time  the  connexion  be- 
tween the  birth  of  th'1  .Messiah  and  the  deliverance  of  Judah  satisfactorily 
explained. 

III.  The  third  general  hypothesis  proposes  to  effect  this  by  applying  all 
three  verses  directly  and  exclusively  to  the  Messiah,  as  the  only  child  whose 
birth  is  there  predicted,  and  his  growth  made  the  measure  of  the  subsequent 
events.     The  minor  variations  of  this  general  hypothesis  relate  to  the  time 
when  these  events  were  to  occur,  and  to  the  sense  in  which  the  growth  of  the 
Messiah  is  adopted  as  the  measure  of  them.     1.  The  simplest  form  in  which 
this  theory  has  been  applied,  is  that  exhibited  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  others, 
who  suppose  the  prediction  to  relate  to  the  real,  time  of  Christ's  appearance, 
and  the  thing  foretold  to  be  the  desolation  which   should  take  place  before 
the  Saviour  reached  a  certain  age.     To  this  it  is  an  obvious  objection  that 
it  makes  the  event  predicted  too  remote  to  answer  the  conditions  of  the  con- 
text, or  the  purpose  of  the  prophecy  itself.     A  similar  objection  has  indeed 
been  urged  by  the  Rabbins  and  others,  to  a  prophecy  of  Christ's  birth  as  a 
sign  of  the  promise  made  to  Ahaz.     But  the  cases  are  entirely  dissimilar. 
The  promise  of  immediate  deliverance  might  be  confirmed  by  an  appeal  to 
an  event  long  posterior,  if  the  one  necessarily  implied  the  other,  as  included 
in  it,  or  as   a  necessary  previous  condition.     Thus  the  promise  that  Israel 
should  worship  God  at  Sinai,  was  a  sign  to  Moses,  that  they  should  first  be 
delivered  from  Egypt  (Ex.  3  :  12),  and  the  promise  that  the  tillage  interrupted 
by  Sennacherib's  invasion  should  be  resumed,  was  a  sign  to  Hezekiah,  that 
the  invasion  was  itself  to  cease  (Is.  37  :  30).     In  like  manner,  the  assur- 
ance that  Christ  was  to  be  bora   in  Judah,  of  its   royal  family,  might  be  a 
sign  to  Ahaz,  that  the  kingdom  should  not  perish  in  his  day  ;  and  so  far  was 
the  remoteness  of  the  sign  in  this  case  from  making  it  absurd  or  inappro- 
priate, that  the  further  off  it  was,  the  stronger  the  promise  of  continuance  to 
Judah,  which  it  guaranteed.     Especially  is  this  the  case  if  we  suppose  it  to 
have  been   a   familiar  doctrine  of  the  ancient  church,  that  the  Messiah  was 
to  come,  and  that  for  his  sake  Israel  existed  as  a  nation.     But  according  to 
the  theory  now  in  question,  not  only  is  the  sign  remote,  but.  also  the  thing 
signified  ;  not  only  the  pledge  of  the  event,  but  the  event  itself.     The  Pro- 
phet's contemporaries  might  have   been  encouraged  to  expect  deliverance 
from  present  danger  by  the  promise  of  Christ's  coming,  but  a  promise  of 
deliverance  before  the  end  of  seven  hundred  years  could  afford  no  encour- 
agement at  all.     That  this  objection  to  the  theory  in  question  has  been  felt 
by  some  of  its  most  able  advocates,  may  be  inferred  from  several  facts.     One 
is  that  J.  H.  Michaelis   is  obliged   to  insert  the  words   long  since  (dudum 
deserta  erit),  and  yet  to  leave  the  promise  wholly  indefinite.     Another  is 
that  Henderson  departs  from  the  ancient  and  almost  universal  explanation  of 
the  passage  as  a  promise,  and  converts  it  into  a  threatening,  not  only  against 


120  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

Israel,  but  against  Judah  ;  both  of  which  kingdoms  were  to  lose  their  kings 
before  the  twelfth  year  of  our  Saviour,  when  Archelaus  was  banished  from 
Judea.     A  third  is  that  Cocceius,  though  one  of  the  most  accurate  philolo- 
gists of  his  own  or  any  other  age,  and  only  too  decided  in  his  exegetical 
judgments,  hesitates  between  the  interpretation  now  in  question  and  the  un- 
grammatical  and  arbitrary  reference  of  v.  16  to  a   different  child.     At  all 
events,  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  the  application  of  these  three  verses 
to  the  time  of  Christ's  actual   appearance  has  no  claim  to  be  received,  if 
there  is  any  other  form  of  the  same  general  hypothesis,  by  which  the  con- 
nexion of  the  promise  with  the  context  can  be  made  more  natural.     2.  This 
end  Vitringa  has  attempted  to  secure,  by  supposing  the  language  to  be  hy- 
pothetical, or  that  the  Prophet,  while  he  views  the  birth  of  Christ  as  a 
remote  event,  makes  it  the  measure  of  events   at  hand — q.  d.  before  the 
Messiah,  if  he  were  born  now,  could  know  how  to  distinguish  good  from  evil, 
etc.     The  only  objection   to   this  ingenious  explanation  is  that  the  condi- 
tional expression  on  which  all   depends,  if  he  were  born  now,  is  precisely 
that  which  is  omitted,  and  of  which  the  text  contains  no  intimation.     And 
that  the  Prophet,  without  such  intimation,  would  make  this  use  of  an  event 
which  he  distinctly  saw  to  be  remote,  though  not  incredible,  ought  surely 
not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity.     3.  Another  modification  of  the  hypo- 
thesis which  refers  the  three  verses  all  to  the  Messiah,  is  that  proposed  by 
Rosenmuller,  in  the  second  and  subsequent  editions  of  his  Scholia,  and  sub- 
stantially renewed  by  Ewald,  viz.  that  Tsaiah   really  expected  the  Messiah 
to  be  born  at  once,  and  therefore  naturally  made  the  progress  of  his  infancy 
the  measure  of  a  proximate  futurity.     Neither  of  these  writers  supposes  any 
reference  to  Christ,  both  regarding  the  prediction  as  a  visionary  anticipation. 
But  Hengstenberg  has  clearly  shown  that  such  a  positive  belief  and  ex- 
pectation, on  Isaiah's  part,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with   other  prophecies, 
but  with  the  sequel  of  this,  in  which  a  series  of  calamitous  events  is  described 
as  intervening  between  the  approaching  deliverance  and  the  nativity  of  the 
Messiah.     To  the  merely  negative  assumption  that  the  time  of  the  advent 
formed  net  part  of  this  particular  revelation,  he  thinks  there  is  not  the  same 
objection.     A.  Accordingly,  his  own  interpretation  of  the  passage  is,  that 
the  birth  of  the  Messiah  being  presented  to  the  Prophet  in  connexion  with 
the  proximate  deliverance  of  which  it  was  the  sign  or  pledge,  without  regard 
to  chronological  relations,  and  seen  by  him  in  prophetic  ecstasy  as  actually 
present,  he  naturally  makes  the  one  the  measure  of  the  other.     As  if  he  had 
said,  I  see  the  virgin  bringing  forth  a  son,  and  calling  his  namelmmanuel ;  I 
see  him  living  in  the  midst  of  desolation  till  a  certain  age ;  but  before  that 
time  arrives,  1  see  the  land  of  our  invaders  lying  desolate.     The  only  objection 
to  this  ingenious  improvement  on  Vitringa's  ingenious  exposition,  is  that  it 
rests  upon  a  certain  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  prophetic  inspiration  or  of  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII.  121 

mental   state  in  which  the  prophets  received  and  ottered  their  communi- 
tions,  which,  however  probable,  is  not  at  present  generally  current  with  be- 
lievers in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  perhaps  maintained  by 
Hengstenberg  himself. 

In  expounding  this  difficult  and  interesting  passage,  it  has  been  consid- 
ered more  important  to  present  a  tolerably  full  view  of  the  different  opinions, 
arranged  according  to  the  principles  on  which  they  rest,  than  to  assert  the 
exclusive  truth  of  any  one  interpretation  as  to  all  its  parts.  In  summing  up 
the  whole,  however,  it  may  be  confidently  stated,  that  the  first  hypothesis  is 
false ;  that  the  first  modifications  of  the  second  and  third  are  untenable  ; 
and  that  the  choice  lies  between  the  supposition  of  a  double  sense  and  that 
of  a  reference  to  Christ  exclusively,  but  in  connexion  with  the  promise  of 
immediate  deliverance  to  Ahaz.  The  two  particular  interpretations  which 
appear  to  me  most  plausible  and  least  beset  with  difficulties,  are  those  of 
Lowth  and  Vitringa,  with  which  last  Hengstenberg's  is  essentially  identical. 
Either  the  Prophet,  while  he  foretells  the  birth  of  Christ,  foretells  that  of 
another  child,  during  whose  infancy  the  promised  deliverance  shall  be  expe- 
rienced ;  or  else  he  makes  the  infancy  of  Christ  himself,  whether  foreseen  as 
still  remote  or  not,  the  sign  and  measure  of  that  same  deliverance.  While 
some  diversity  of  judgment  ought  to  be  expected  and  allowed,  in  relation  to 
this  secondary  question,  there  is  no  ground,  grammatical,  historical,  or 
logical,  for  doubt  as  to  the  main  point,  that  the  church  in  all  ages  has  been 
right  in  regarding  this  passage  as  a  signal  and  explicit  prediction  of  the 
miraculous  conception  and  nativity  of  Jesus  Christ. 

As  to  the  form  of  the  expression,  it  will  only  be  necessary  further  to 
remark  that  Mi  is  not  a  verb  or  participle  (Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller),  but  a 
feminine  adjective,  signifying  pregnant,  and  here  connected  with  an  active 
participle,  to  denote  that  the  object  is  described  as  present  to  the  Pro- 
phet's view.  Behold,  the  virgin,  pregnant  and  bringing  forth  a  son,  and 
she  calls  his  name  Immanuel.  The  future  form  adopted  by  the  Septua- 
gint  (Jhi,  rt'l*ETai)  is  retained  in  the  New  Testament,  because  the  words 
are  there  considered  simply  as  a  prophecy  ;  but  in  order  to  exhibit  the 
full  force  which  they  have  in  their  original  connexion,  the  present  form 
must  be  restored.  The  form  of  the  sentence  is  evidently  copied  from 
the  angel's  address  to  Hagar  (Gen.  16:  11),  and  so  closely  that  the  verb 
nx^(5  remains  unchanged ;  not,  however,  as  the  second  person  feminine 
(though  all  the  other  Greek  versions  have  xafo'oeig,  and  Junius  likewise, 
who  supplies  o  virgo  to  remove  the  ambiguity),  but  as  the  third  person 
feminine,  analogous  to  N$»  (Lev.  25:  21),  rxb£?  (Ps.  118:  23),  rxsn 
(Gen.  33  :  1 1).  The  form  rMttjj  itself  occurs  (Deut.  31  :  29,  Jer.  44  :  23)} 
but  in  another  sense  (See  Nordheimer,  §  422.)  Calvin,  with  a  strange 
lapse   of  memory,  alleges    that    in   Scripture  mothers  never   name    their 


122  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

children,  and  that  a  departure  from  the  constant  usage  here  is  a  pro- 
phetic intimation  that  the  child  would  have  no  human  father.  The  error 
of  fact  is  easily  corrected  by  referring  to  the  exercise  of  this  prerogative 
by  Eve,  Leah,  Rachel,  Hannah,  and  others  (Gen.  4:  1-25.  19: 
37.  29:  32-35.  30:  6-24.  1  Sam.  1  :  20.  1  Chron.  4:  9.  7:  16.) 
That  the  same  act  is  frequently  ascribed  to  the  father,  needs  of  course 
no  proof.  In  the  case  before  us,  it  is  so  far  from  being  an  important 
question,  who  was  to  impose  the  name,  that  it  matters  very  little  whether 
it  was  ever  imposed  at  all  ;  or  rather,  it  is  certain  that  the  name  is  merely 
descriptive  or  symbolical,  and  that  its  actual  use  in  real  life  was  no  more 
necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  than  that  the  Messiah  should 
be  commonly  known  by  the  titles  of  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Prince  of 
Peace  (Isai.  9 :  6),  or  the  Lord  our  Righteousness  (Jer.  23  :  6).  Hence 
in  Matthew  1  :  23,  the  singular  fttWg,  is  changed  into  the  plural  xaXeoovai, 
they  shall  call,  i.  e.  they  indefinitely,  as  in  our  familiar  phrase  they  say,  cor- 
responding to  the  French  on  dit  and  the  German  man  sagt,  which  last 
construction  is  adopted  by  Augusti  in  his  version  of  this  sentence  (man 
wird  nennen  seinen  Namen).  With  equal  adherence  to  the  spirit,  and 
equal  departure  from  the  letter  of  the  prophecy,  the  Peshito  and  Vulgate 
give  the  verb  a  passive  form,  his  name  shall  be  called.  As  to  the  meaning 
of  the  name  itself,  its  higher  sense  is  evident  from  Matthew's  application, 
notwithstanding  Hitzig's  paradoxical  denial,  and  its  lower  sense  from  the 
usage  of  analogous  expressions  in  Ps.  46:  8,  12.  89:  25.  Josh.  1  :  5.  Jer. 
I  :  8.  Isai.  43 :  2. 

V.  15.  This  verse  and  the  next  have  already  been  translated  in  con- 
nexion with  the  fourteenth,  upon  which  connexion  their  interpretation  must 
depend.  It  will  here  be  necessary  only  to  explain  one  or  two  points  more 
distinctly.  Butter  (or  curds)  and  honey  shall  he  eat,  until  he  knows  (how)  to 
reject  the  evil  and  to  choose  the  good.  The  simple  sense  of  the  prediction 
is  that  the  desolation  of  Judah,  caused  by  the  invasion  of  Rezin  and  Pekah, 
should  be  only  temporary.  This  idea  is  symbolically  expressed  by  making 
the  new-born  child  subsist  during  his  infancy  on  curds  and  honey,  instead  of 
the  ordinary  food  of  an  agricultural  population.  This  is  clearly  the  meaning 
of  the  same  expression  in  v.  22,  as  we  shall  see  below  ;  it  cannot  therefore 
here  denote  the  real  humanity  of  the  person  mentioned  (Calvin,  Vitringa, 
Henderson,  etc.),  which  is  besides  sufficiently  implied  in  his  being  born  of  a 
human  mother,  and  could  not  be  asserted  here  without  interrupting  the  con- 
nexion between  the  fourteenth  and  sixteenth  verses.  It  cannot  denote  his 
poverty  or  low  condition  (Calovius),or  that  of  the  family  of  David  (Alting), 
because  no  such  idea  is  suggested  by  the  words.  It  cannot,  on  the  other 
hand,  denote  abundance  or  prosperity  in  general  (Grotius,  Cocceius,  Junius, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII.  123 

etc.),  because  such  a  diet  is  no  proof  of  that  condition,  and  because,  according 
to  v.  22,  the  words  are  descriptive  only  of  such  abundance  as  arises  from 
a  sparse  population  and  neglected  tillage.  That  this  desolation  should  be 
temporary,  is  expressed  by  representing  it  as  coextensive  with  the  early 
childhood  of  the  person  mentioned,  in?*^  is  explained  by  Jarchi,  Lowth, 
Hitzig,  Henderson,  and  Ewald,  to  mean  when  he  lenows  ;  by  most  other 
'writers,  till  or  before  he  knoivs  (LXX  nnh  i)  yv&vai).  The  Vulgate,  Luther, 
Junius,  and  Clericus  refer  it,  not  to  time  at  all,  but  to  the  design  or  effect  of 
his  eating  curds  and  honey,  that  he  may  know.  It  is  clear  however,  from  the 
next  verse,  that  this  one  must  contain  a  specification  of  time,  however  vague. 
The  difference  between  the  versions  when  and  till,  and  also  in  relation  to 
the  age  described — which  J.  D.  Michaelis  puts  as  high  as  twenty-one, 
Ewald  from  ten  to  twenty,  Henderson  at  twelve,  but  Kimchi  and  most 
others  at  about  three  years — is  not  so  important  as  it  might  at  first  sight 
seem,  because  the  description  was  probably  intended  to  be  somewhat  indefi- 
nite. The  essential  idea  is  that  the  desolation  should  not  last  until  a  child 
then  born  could  reach  maturity,  and  probably  not  longer  than  his  first  few 
years.  Clericus  supposes  good  and  evil  to  mean  pleasant  and  unpleasant 
food,  as  in  1  Sam.  19:  35;  but  the  same  words  elsewhere  constantly  relate 
to  moral  distinctions  and  the  power  to  perceive  them  (Gen.  3  :  5.  Deut.  1  : 
39.  1  Kings  3  :  9.  Jonah  4  :  2).  Nothing  short  of  the  strongest  exegetical 
necessity  could  justify  the  reference  of  this  verse  to  Shearjashub  (Junius, 
Usher),  or  to  any  other  subject  than  the  one  referred  to  in  the  verse  pre- 
ceding, namely,  Immanuel,  the  child  whose  birth  the  Prophet  there  describes 
as  just  at  hand,  and  whose  infancy  he  here  describes  as  passed  in  the  midst 
of  surrounding  desolation.  To  the  explanation  of  this  verse  as  having  refer- 
ence to  Isaiah's  own  son  or  a  son  of  Ahaz  on  the  one  hand,  or  to  the  time 
of  our  Saviour's  actual  appearance  on  the  other,  sufficient  objections  have 
already  been  adduced  in  the  interpretation  of  the  fourteenth  verse. 

V.  16.  The  desolation  shall  be  temporary — for  before  the  child  shall 
know  (how)  to  reject  the  evil  and  to  choose  the  good,  the  land,  ofivhose  two 
kings  thou  art  afraid  (or  by  whose  two  kings  thou  art  distressed),  shall  be 
forsaken,  i.  e.  left  by  its  inhabitants  and  given  up  to  desolation,  in  which 
sense  the  same  verb  is  used  elsewhere  by  Isaiah  (ch.  17  :  2.  27  :  10.  62: 
12.  Comp.  6  :  12).  Instead  of  taking  -"sn  thus  absolutely,  most  of  the 
older  writers,  and  a  few  of  later  date,  connect  it  with  "^B^,  and  y% 
with  "rtfJI.  The  land  which  thou  abhorrest  (or  for  which  thou  fearest) 
shall  be  forsaken  by  both  its  kings — i.  e.  Judah  shall  be  forsaken  by  Rezin 
and  Pekah,  whom  Steudel  supposes  to  be  called  its  kings  de  facto — or 
Syria  and  Israel  shall  be  deprived  of  Rezin  and  Pekah — or  Canaan  (in- 
cluding Israel  and  Judah)  shall  lose  both  its  kings.     This  last  is  the  inter- 


124 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  VII. 


pretation  given  by  Henderson,  who  also  reads  the  land  which  thou  destroyest. 
Cleric  us  takes  stjpjg  absolutely,  in  the  sense  of  being  desolate,  but  translates 
the  rest,  which  thou  abhorrest  on  account  of  its  two  Icings.  To  some  of 
these  constructions  it  may  be  objected  that  they  make  the  land  and  not  the 
kings  the  object  of  abhorrence,  and  to  all,  that  they  construe  ypr  directly 
with  *13$^,  which  is  contrary  to  usage,  and  disjoin  it  from  hj?3^,  by  which  it 
is  followed  in  at  least  two  other  places  (Ex.  3  :  12.  Num.  22  :  3)  ;  to  which' 
may  be  added  that  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  this  construction  is  the 
only  one  that  could  be  used  to  signify  before  (or  on  account  of)  ivhose  two 
kings  thou  art  in  terror.  This  construction,  which  is  given  by  Castalio  and 
DeDieu,  is  adopted  by  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller, 
Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  most  other  modern  writers,  who  are  also  agreed  that 
the  land  here  meant  is  Syria  and  Israel,  spoken  of  as  one  because  confederate 
against  Judah.  The  wasting  of  these  kingdoms  and  the  deportation  of  their 
people  by  Tiglath-pileser  (2  Kings  15:  29.  16:  9)  is  here  predicted, 
which  of  course  implies  the  previous  deliverance  of  Judah  and  the  brief 
duration  of  its  own  calamity,  so  that  this  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  the  repre- 
sentation in  the  one  preceding.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  imposing  upon 
*3,  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  the  sense  of  nay  (Piscator),  indeed  (Cal- 
vin), although  (Alting),  or  but  (Umbreit),  or  any  other  than  its  usual  and 
proper  one  of/or,  because.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  regard  the  fifteenth  verse- 
as  a  parenthesis,  with  Cocceius  and  Rosenmiiller ;  much  less  to  reject  it  as  a 
gloss,  with  Hitzig,  and  as  breaking  the  connexion  between  the  name  Im- 
manuel  in  v.  14,  and  the  explanation  of  it  in  v.  16.  The  true  connexion  of 
the  verses  has  been  well  explained  by  Maurer  and  Knobel  to  be  this,  that 
Judah  shall  lie  waste  for  a  short  time,  and  only  for  a  short  time,  for  before 
that  short  time  is  expired,  its  invaders  shall  themselves  be  invaded  and  de- 
stroyed. This  view  of  the  connexion  is  sufficient  to  evince,  that  the  refer- 
ence of  this  verse  to  Shearjashub  (Lowth)  or  to  any  child  indefinitely 
(Calvin)  is  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  ungrammatical.  A  child  is  born — he 
learns  to  distinguish  good  and  evil — but  before  the  child  is  able  to  distin- 
guish good  and  evil,  something  happens.  If  these  three  clauses,  thus  suc- 
ceeding one  another,  do  not  speak  of  the  same  child,  it  is  impossible  for  lan- 
guage to  be  so  employed  as  to  identify  the  subject  without  actually  saying 
that  it  is  the  same. 

V.  17.  Again  addressing  Ahaz,  he  assures  him  that  although  he  shall 
escape  the  present  danger,  God  will  inflict  worse  evils  on  himself  and  his 
successors,  by  means  of  those  very  allies  whose  assistance  he  is  now  seek- 
ing. Jehovah  will  bring  upon  thee — not  merely  as  an  individual,  but  as  a 
king — and  on  thy  people — and  on  thy  father's  house — or  family — the  royal 
line  of  Judah — days  which  have  not  come  since  the  departure  of  Ephraim 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VII.  1-r, 

from  Judah,  to  wit,  the  Icing  of  Assyria.  It  is  possible  to  construe  the 
sentence  so  as  to  make  it  refer  to  the  retreat  of  the  invaders — Jehovah  will 
bring  upon  thee  days  which  have  not  come  (never  come  before),  from  the 
day  that  Ephraim  departs  from  Judah,  i.  e.  as  soon  as  this  invasion  ceases, 
worse  times  shall  begin.  This  construction,  which  is  permitted,  if  not  fa- 
voured, by  the  Masoretic  accents,  has  the  advantage  of  giving  to  bzrz  its 
strict  sense,  as  implying  the  removal  of  a  burden  or  infliction  (see  Exod. 
10 :  28,  and  Gesenius  s.  v.)  rather  than  a  mere  revolt  or  schism,  and  also  that 
of  making  the  expression  stronger  {days  which  have  not  come  at  all,  or  never 
come)  and  at  the  same  time  less  indefinite  by  specifying  when  the  days 
were  to  begin.  But  as  the  absolute  use  of  the  phrase  which  have  not  come 
is  rather  harsh  and  unusual,  and  as  the  compound  forms  ci*rb  and  vqp&  are 
elsewhere  used  only  in  relation  to  the  past  (Judg.  19:  30.  2  Sam.  7  :  6. 
2  Kings  19:  25.  Mai. 3  :  7),  although  the  simple  forms  trttt  and  ^sna  some- 
times denote  the  future  (Exod.  12:  15.  Lev.  22:  27.  Ez.  38:  8),  it  is  safer 
to  adhere  to  the  unanimous  decision  of  all  versions  and  interpreters,  so 
far  as  I  can  trace  it,  and  understand  the  verse  as  declaring  the  days  threat- 
ened to  be  worse  than  any  which  had  come  upon  Judah  since  the  revolt  of 
the  ten  tribes,  here  called  Ephraim,  from  the  largest  and  most  powerful 
tribe,  that  to  which  Jeroboam  belonged,  and  within  which  the  chief  towns 
of  the  kingdom  were  situated.  This  declaration  seems  at  first  sight  incon- 
sistent with  the  fact,  demonstrable  from  sacred  history,  that  the  injuries  sus- 
tained by  Judah,  during  the  interval  here  specified,  from  other  foreign 
powers,  as  for  example  from  the  Egyptians  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam 
(2  Chron.  12 :  2-9),  from  the  Philistines  and  Arabians  in  the  reign  of  Jeho- 
ram  (2  Chron.  21  :  16,  17),  from  the  Syrians  in  the  reign  of  Joash 
(2  Chron.  24  :  23,  24),  not  to  mention  the  less  successful  attacks  of  the 
Ethiopians  in  the  reign  of  Asa  (2  Chron.  14  :  8-15),  and  of  Moab  and  Am- 
nion in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron.  20 :  1-30),  or  the  frequent  incur- 
sions of  the  ten  tribes,  must  have  greatly  overbalanced  the  invasion  of  Sen- 
nacherib, by  far  the  most  alarming  visitation  of  Judah  by  the  armies  of 
Assyria.  This  apparent  discrepancy  is  not  to  be  explained  by  regarding 
the  prophecy  before  us,  with  Gesenius,  as  a  mere  threat  (blosses  Droh- 
wort),  nor  by  alleging  that  the  days  here  threatened  are  not  described  as 
worse  than  any  former  days,  but  only  as  different  from  them.  Even 
granting  that  the  prophecy  implies  not  merely  change  of  condition,  but 
a  change  for  the  worse,  it  may  be  justified  in  either  of  two  ways.  Ac- 
cording to  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Henderson,  and  others,  the  king  of  As- 
syria may  here  include  the  kings  of  Babylon,  to  whom  the  title  is  applied 
in  2  Kings  23 :  29,  if  not  in  Neh.  9 :  32,  as  it  is  to  the  kings  of  Persia 
in  Ezra  6  :  22,  considered  as  successors  to  the  Assyrian  power,  in  ac- 
cordance with  which   usage,  Herodotus  calls  Babylon  a  city  of  Assyria. 


126  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

But  even    this    supposition,  although  highly  probable,  is  not  here  neces- 
sary.    Let  it  be  observed  that  the  days  here  threatened  were  to  be  worse, 
not  simply  with  respect  to  individual  suffering  or  temporary  difficulties  of 
the  state  itself,  but    to    the    loss    of  its  independence,  its  transition  to  a 
servile  state,  from  which  it  was  never  permanently  freed,  the  domination 
of  Assyria  being  soon  succeeded  by  that  of  Egypt,  and  this  by  that  of 
Babylon,  Persia,  Syria,  and  Rome,  the  last  ending  only  in  the  downfall 
of  the  state,  and  that  general  dispersion  of  the  people  which  continues  to 
this  day.    The  revolt  of  Hezekiah  and  even  longer  intervals  of  liberty  in  later 
times,  are  mere  interruptions    of  the  customary  and  prevailing    bondage. 
Of  this  critical  change  it  surely  might  be  said,  even  though  it  were  to 
cost  not  a  single  drop  of  blood,  nor  the  personal  freedom  of  a  single  captive, 
that  the  Lord  was  about  to  bring  upon  Judah  days  which  had  not  been 
witnessed  from  the  time  of  Ephraim's  apostasy,  or  according  to  the  other 
construction  of  the  text,  at  any  time  whatever ;  since  none  of  the   evils 
suffered,  from  Solomon  to  Ahaz,  had  destroyed  the  independence  of  Judah, 
not  even  the  Egyptian  domination  in    the  reign  of  Rehoboam,  which  only 
lasted  Ions  enough  to  teach  the  Jews  the  difference  between  God's  service 
and  the  service  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  countries  (2  Chron.  12:  8).     This 
view  of  the  matter  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  reconcile  the  prophecy  with 
history,  whether  Assyria  be  understood  to  mean  the  kingdom  properly  so 
called,  or  to  include   the  empires   which   succeeded   it ;  and  whether  the 
threatening  be  referred  exclusively  to  Ahaz  and  his  times,  as  Gesenius   and 
Rosenmuller   say  it  must  be,  or  to  him  and  his  successors  jointly,  which 
appears  to  be  the  true  sense  of  thy  people  and  thy  father's  house,  as  distin- 
guished from  himself  and  his  own  house  ;  but  even  on  the  other  supposition, 
as  the  change  of  times,  i.  e.  the  transition  from  an  independent  to  a  servile 
state,  took  place  before  the  death  of  Ahaz,  the  expressions  used  are  per- 
fectly consistent  with    the    facts.     It  is  implied,  of  course,  in  this  inter- 
pretation, that    Sennacherib's    invasion    was    not    the    beginning    of   the 
days  here  threatened,  which  is  rather  to  be  sought  in  the  alliance  between 
•Ahaz    and    Tiglath-pileser,  ivho  came  unto  him,  and  distressed  him,  and 
strengthened  him  not  (2  Chron.  28:  19,  20),  but  exacted  repeated  contri- 
butions from  him  as  a  vassal ;  which  degrading  and  oppressive  intercourse 
continued  till  his  death,  as  appears  from  the  statement  (2  Kings  18:  7) 
that  Hezekiah  rebelled  against  the  Tcing  of  Assyria,  and  served  him  not, 
clearly  implying  that  he  did  at  first,  as  he  offered  to  do  afterwards,  on  Sen- 
nacherib's approach,  with  confession   of  his  fault,  a  renewal  of  his  tribute, 
and  a  repetition  of  his  father's  sacrilege  (2  Kings  18 :  13T16).     That  during 
the  whole  term  of  this  foreign  ascendency,  Judah  was  infested  by  Assyrian 
intruders,  and  by  frequent  visitations  for  the  purpose  of  extorting  their  unwil- 
ling tribute,  till  at  last  the  revolt  of  Hezekiah,  no  longer  able  to  endure  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII.  127 

burden,  led  to  a  formal  occupation  of  the  country,  is  not  only  probable 
in  itself,  but  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  subsequent  context  (vs.  18-20.) 
The  abrupt  eommencement  of  this  verse,  without  a  connecting  particle,  led 
Alting  to  regard  it  as  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence  beginning  with  v.  16 — 
'before  the  child  shall  know  etc.  and  before  the  land  shall  be  forsaken, 
Jehovah  will  bring  upon  thee,  etc'  But  besides  the  unusual  length  and 
involution  of  the  sentence,  and  the  arbitrary  repetition  of  before  with  and,  it 
cannot  be  explained,  on  this  hypothesis,  to  what  desolation  v.  1G  alludes,  as 
the  overthrow  of  Israel  preceded  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  Assyria.  The 
abrupt  commencement  of  the  sentence  is  regarded  by  Maurer  as  a  proof 
that  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  of  later  date ;  by  Hitzig  as  marking  the 
commencement  of  the  prophecy  itself,  what  precedes  being  introductory  to 
it.  Vitringa  supposes  that  the  Prophet  paused,  as  if  unwilling  to  proceed  ; 
Houbigant,  as  usual,  amends  the  text  by  inserting  vav ;  while  Lowth  and 
others  follow  the  Septuagint  by  supplying  but.  According  to  Hendewerk, 
however,  the  adversative  particle  is  out  of  place,  as  he  denies  that  what 
now  follows  is  a  threatening  appended  to  a  previous  promise,  and  regards  it 
as  an  amplification  of  the  threatening  in  v.  15  ;  but  that  relates  to  the  Syrian 
invasion,  this  to  the  Assyrian  domination.  Aiting's  translation  of  sp&p  by 
against  thee,  though  it  does  not  change  the  general  sense,  destroys  its  figu- 
rative dress,  in  which  there  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  bringing  of  water 
or  the  like  upon  a  person,  so  as  to  destroy  him.  Compare  Joshua  23  :  15 
and  24 :  7. — The  last  words  of  this  verse  (pmtk  -jba  rx)  have  been  rejected 
as  a  gloss  by  Houbigant,  Seeker,  Lowth,  Eichhorn,  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Mau- 
rer, Hendewerk,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  on  the  ground  that  they  contain  an 
inelegant  anticipation  of  what  follows,  and  an  explanation  of  what  goes 
before,  at  once  superfluous  and  incorrect,  since  Egypt  as  well  as  Assyria 
is  mentioned  afterwards.  That  Assyria  might  be  naturally  named  alone, 
as  first  in  time  and  in  importance,  is  admitted  by  Eichhorn,  who  rejects  the 
clause  on  other  grounds ;  and  Maurer,  who  does  the  same,  speaks  with 
contempt  of  the  objection  founded  on  the  days  being  explained  to  mean  the 
king  (id  nihil  est).  As  for  the  rhetorical  objection  that  the  words  are  too 
prosaic,  it  is  founded  on  the  modern  notion  that  the  prophets  were  mere 
poets.  The  objections  to  the  explanation  which  the  clause  contains,  as 
superfluous  and  incorrect,  may  cancel  one  another,  as  both  cannot  well  be 
true.  Gesenius  thinks  the  supposition  of  a  gloss  the  more  probable  because 
he  has  detected  several  others  in  this  prophecy  ;  while  Ewald,  on  the  other 
hand,  retains  the  words  as  genuine,  because  they  recur  below  in  v.  20  and 
in  ch.  8 :  7.  The  external  evidence  is  all  in  favour  of  the  clause.  There 
is  no  need  of  making  rx  a  preposition  meaning  by,  though,  or  from,  as  Je- 
rome, Luther,  Grotius,  and  Clericus  do;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  regard  the 
words  as  in  apposition  to  dw ,  since  they  are  rather  a  second  object  to  the 


128  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

verb  R*a* ,  which  may  be  considered  as  repeated  before  ra ,  as  Hengstenberg 
suggests — he  shall  bring  upon  thee  days  etc.  (he  shall  bring  upon  thee)  the 
king  of  Assyria. 

V.  18.  The  evil  times  just  threatened  are  here  more  explicitly  described 
as  arising  from  the  presence  and  oppression  of  foreigners,  especially  Assyri- 
ans and  Egyptians,  whose  number  and  vexatious  impositions  are  expressed 
by  comparing  them  to  swarms  of  noxious  and  annoying  insects,  pouring  into 
the  country  by  divine  command.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that 
day  (in  the  days  just  threatened)  that  Jehovah  will  hiss  (or  whistle)  to  (or 
for)  the  fly  which  (is)  in  the  end  (or  edge)  of  the  rivers  of  Egypt,  and  to 
(or  for)  the  bee  which  is  in  Assyria.  The  fly  is  peculiarly  appropriate  to 
Egypt,  where  the  marshy  grounds  produce  it  in  abundance,  and  there  may 
be  a  reference,  as  Barnes  supposes,  to  the  plague  of  flies  in  Exodus.  Knobel 
and  others  think  there  may  be  also  an  allusion  to  the  abounding  of  bees  in 
Assyria ;  but  the  Prophet  probably  intended  only  to  combine  two  familiar 
and  annoying  kinds  of  insects,  and  not  to  describe  the  distinctive  qualities  of 
the  two  nations,  the  fierceness  and  boldness  of  the  Assyrians,  the  filth  (Ba- 
sil), cowardice  (Jerome),  or  buzzing  speech  (Cyril)  of  the  Egyptians.  The 
end  of  the  streams  of  Egypt  is  referred  by  some  to  the  adjacent  countries 
(Junius,  Piscator)  ;  but  it  evidently  means  something  belonging  to  Egypt 
itself,  viz.  the  arms  of  the  Delta  (Vitringa,  Clericus,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Rosen- 
miiller,  Hendewerk,  Henderson),  or  the  remotest  streams  (Gesenius,  Maurer, 
Ewald),  implying  that  the  flies  should  come  from  the  very  extremities,  or 
from  the  whole  land  (Barnes).  By  making  n*p  denote  the  lateral  extremity 
or  edge,  and  rendering  it  brink  or  border,  as  the  common  version  does  in 
Josh.  3:  8.  Ex.  16 :  35,  an  equally  good  sense  is  obtained,  viz.  that  the  flies 
shall  come  from  the  banks  of  the  streams,  where  they  are  most  abundant. — 
The  hiss  or  whistle,  denoting  God's  control  over  these  enemies  of  Judah,  has 
the  same  sense  as  in  ch.  5 :  26.  Assyria  and  Egypt  are  not  here  named 
indefinitely  (Hendewerk),  but  as  the  two  great  rival  powers  who  disturbed 
the  peace  of  Western  Asia,  and  to  whom  the  land  of  Israel  was  both  a 
place  and  subject  of  contention.  The  bee  cannot  of  itself  denote  an  army 
(Barnes),  nor  is  the  reference  exclusively  to  actual  invasion,  but  to  the  an- 
noying and  oppressive  occupation  of  the  country  by  civil  and  military  agents 
of  these  foreign  powers.  It  was  not  merely  attacked  but  infested,  by  the 
flies  and  bees  of  Egypt  and  Assyria.  Fly  is  understood  as  a  generic  term 
including  gnats,  mosquitoes  etc.  by  Henderson,  and  bee  as  including  wasps 
and  hornets  by  Hitzig  and  Umbreit. 

V.  19.    Carrying  out  the  figures  of  the  preceding  verse,  the  Prophet, 
instead  of  simply  saying  that  the  land  shall  be  infested  by  foreigners,  repre- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.    VII.  129 

sents  it  as  completely  filled  with  bees  and  flies,  who  are  described  as  settling 
upon  all  the  places  commonly  frequented  by  such  insects.  And  they  cc 
and  rest  (or  settle)  all  of  them  in  the  desolate  (or  precipitous)  valleys,  and 
in  the  clefts  of  rocks,  and  in  all  thorn-hedges,  and  in  all  pastures.  Accord- 
ing to  dericos,  the  places  mentioned  are  those  suited  for  the  encampment 
of  troops ;  but  this  supposes  a  different  meaning  of  the  words  translated 
desolate  valleys  and  thom-hedges.  The  exclusive  reference  to  invading 
armies  is  assumed  by  other  writers  also;  but  although  this  may  have  been 
the  prominent  idea,  the  words  seem  naturally  to  express  the  general  notion 
of  a  country  overrun,  infested,  filled  with  foreigners  and  enemies,  not  only 
by  military  occupation  but  in  other  ways.  The  opinion  of  Kimchi  and 
Forerius,  that  the  sites  of  towns  are  here  described,  overlooks  the  beautiful 
allusion  to  the  habits  of  the  insects  mentioned.  The  same  objection  lies  in 
part  against  the  supposition  of  an  antithesis  between  deserted  and  frequented 
places  (Cocceius),  or  between  worthless  and  valuable  products,  '  thorns  and 
shrubbery  of  pleasure'  (Barnes),  which  rests  moreover  upon  etymologies 
now  commonly  abandoned.  Grotius  suggests  that  these  four  terms  have 
reference  to  the  two  kinds  of  insects  alternately,  the  first  and  third  denoting 
customary  haunts  of  flies,  the  second  and  fourth  of  bees.  The  version  above 
given  is  the  one  adopted  by  the  latest  writers  (Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald, 
Hendewrerk,  Henderson,  Umbreit,  Knobel).  For  a  great  variety  of  older 
explanations  see  Rosenmiiller  on  the  passage  and  Gesenius's  Thesaurus  s.  v. 

V.  20.  Had  the  Prophet,  as  Hendewerk  suggests,  represented  the  inva- 
ders as  locusts,  he  would  probably  have  gone  on  to  describe  them  as  devouring 
the  land  ;  but  having  chosen  bees  and  flies  as  the  emblem,  he  proceeds  to 
express  the  idea  of  their  spoliations  by  a  different  figure,  that  of  a  body 
closely  shorn  or  shaven  by  a  razor  under  the  control  of  God  and  in  his  ser- 
vice. In  that  day  (the  same  day  mentioned  in  v.  19)  rvill  the  Lord  shave, 
with  a  razor  hired  in  the  parts  beyond  the  river  (Euphrates),  (that  is  to 
say)  with  the  king  of  Assyria,  the  head  and  the  hair  of  the  feet  (i.  e.  of 
both  extremities,  or  of  the  whole  body),  and  also  the  beard  will  it  (the 
razor)  take  away.  The  words  11W  *ftsa  are  rejected  by  Gesenius,  Maurer, 
Umbreit,  Knobel,  for  the  same  reason,  or  rather  with  as  little  reason,  as  in 
v.  17.  They  are  retained  by  Hendewerk  and  Ewald.  Aben  Ezra  and 
Abarbenel  follow  the  Targum  and  Peshito  in  making  the  king  of  Assyria 
the  subject  of  the  operation  here  described,  and  suppose  the  destroying 
angel  to  be  called  a  hired  razor,  i.  e.  one  of  the  best  temper  and  condition. 
Theodoret  also  understands  the  king  of  Assyria  to  be  here  described  as 
shaved,  but  by  the  Medes  and  Persians  as  a  razor.  These  constructions 
wholly  disregard  the  preposition  before  T^n,  or  take  it  in  the  sense  of  Ml — 
*  will   shave   in  the   king  of  Assyria,   the  head,'  etc.     Some  understand 

9 


130  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

■ttt)  *$asa  as  an  additional  description  of  the  razor — 'with  a  hired  razor, 
with  those  beyond  the  river,  with  the  king  of  Assyria.'  But  as  i*ja*a  and 
"ia§a  are  never  used  in  reference  to  persons,  the  former  no  doubt  here  de- 
notes the  place  of  hiring — '  a  razor  hired  in  the  parts  beyond  the  river.'  If 
so,  IW!?feJ  cannot  be  a  noun  (novacula  conductionis),  but  must  be  taken  as 
a  verbal  adjective,  equivalent  to  a  passive  participle,  of  which  this  is  a  com- 
mon form  in  Chaldee.  There  is  no  need  of  changing  the  division  of  the 
words,  so  as  to  read  IT^ato  ITOfc,  since  the  article  before  the  noun  may  be 
omitted  by  poetic  license,  and  nsn  is  construed  as  a  feminine  with  rtBbft. 
Instead  of  hired  (pefiiad-cQfievq)),  the  Alexandrian  MS.  of  the  Septuagint 
reads  drunken  (fiefxs&va^tvcp),  which  is  also  the  version  of  Aquila,  Sym- 
machus,  and  Theodotion  ;  and  accordingly  J.  D.  Michaelis  would  read 
hyati,  understanding  by  a  drunken  razor  one  employed  as  a  drunkard 
would  employ  it,  i.  e.  recklessly  and  rashly.  The  same  reading  seems  to  be 
implied  in  the  common  text  of  the  Peshito,  though  Ephrem  Syrus  gives  the 
Syriac  adjective  the  sense  of  sharp.  According  to  the  common  reading,  which 
is  no  doubt  genuine,  the  king  of  Assyria  is  called  a  hired  razor,  not  because 
men  use  what  is  hired  more  unsparingly  than  if  it  were  their  own  (Calvin) — 
nor  simply  because  he  was  allured  or  hired  by  the  hope  of  conquest  (Je- 
rome, Grotius,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  etc.) — nor  simply  because  Ahaz  had 
already  hired  him  (Junius,  Piscator,  Glassius,  etc.) — but  for  the  last  two 
reasons  put  together,  that  as  Ahaz  had  profaned  and  robbed  God's  house  to 
hire  a  foreign  razor,  with  which  Israel  and  Syria  might  be  shaven,  so  God 
would  make  use  of  that  self-same  razor  to  shave  Judah,  i.  e.  to  remove  its 
population,  or  its  wealth,  or  both.  The  rabbinical  interpretation  of  *i3>tt> 
D^Jfi  is  a  poor  conceit,  the  adoption  of  which  by  Gesenius,  if  indicative  of 
nothing  worse,  says  but  little  for  the  taste  and  the  '  aesthetic  feeling  ' 
which  so  often  sits  in  judgment  on  the  language  of  the  Prophet.  The  true 
sense  is  no  doubt  the  one  expressed  by  Ewald  (von  oben  bis  unten),  and 
before  him  by  Clericus,  who  justly  says  of  the  rabbinical  expounders  of  the 
phrase  c  rem  turpiculam  de  suo  Prophetae  admetiri  videntur.'  The  sepa- 
rate mention  of  the  beard  may  have  reference  to  the  oriental  fondness  for  it 
and  associations  of  dishonour  with  the  loss  of  it.  The  specific  explanation 
of  the  beard  as  meaning  the  ministers  of  religion  (Vitringa),  Sennacherib 
(Vatablus),  etc.,  and  a  like  explanation  of  the  other  terms,  are  not  only 
arbitrary  and  capricious,  but  destructive  of  a  beautiful  and  simple  metaphor, 
which  represents  the  spoiling  of  Judah  by  foreign  invaders  and  intruders  as 
the  shaving  of  the  hair  from  a  whole  body.  The  same  remark  applies  to 
Hendewerk's  suggestion,  that  the  parts  of  a  country  are  often  represented  by 
those  of  a  human  body,  and  that  the  hair  of  the  head  may  possibly  denote 
the  wooded  hills  of  Palestine.  Lowth  supplies  Vav  before  "WTJ ;  but  the  latter 
may  be  poetically  used  for  the  Euphrates,  even  without  the  article  (Jer.  2  : 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  Til.  131 

18).  Barnes  explains  nssn  in  a  passive  sense;  but  this  requires  -,-:. 
well  as  nrn,  to  be  taken  as  a  feminine  noun  contrary  to  usage,  a  concur- 
rence of  anomalies  by  no  means  probable.  Henderson  makes  neon  a 
stronger  expression  than  nV|"J,  and  translates  it  shall  scrape  off,  which  is 
given  by  Gesenius  as  the  primary  sense,  but  that  of  causing  to  cease  or 
removing  is  the  one  best  sustained  by  usage.  The  Targum  paraphrases  ":;r 
as  denoting  various  kinds  of  weapons  used  in  war,  and  the  Vulgate  almost 
seems  to  make  the  razor  itself  the  object  to  be  shaved. 

Vs.  21,  22.  In  consequence  of  these  spoliations,  the  condition  of  the 
country  will  be  wholly  changed.  The  population  left  shall  not  be  agri- 
cultural but  pastoral.  Instead  of  living  on  the  fruits  of  the  soil,  they  shall 
subsist  upon  spontaneous  products,  such  as  milk  and  honey,  which  shall  be 
abundant  only  because  the  people  will  be  few  and  the  uncultivated  grounds 
extensive.  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day  (that)  a  man  shall  save  (or  keep)  alive 
a  young  cow  and  two  sheep  ;  and  it  shall  be  (that)  from  the  abundance  of  the 
making  (yielding  or  production)  of  milk,  he  shall  eat  butter  (or  curds  or  cheese 
or  cream)  ;  for  butter  and  honey  shall  every  one  eat  that  is  left  in  the  midst  of 
(or  within)  the  land.  There  is  no  need  of  assuming  a  conditional  construc- 
tion— f  q.  d.  if  one  should  keep  ' — as  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Maurer,  and  DeWette 
do — since  this  idea  is  sufficiently  implied  in  an  exact  translation.  £"n 
does  not  necessarily  mean  every  man,  implying  that  the  poorest  of  the  people 
should  have  so  much  cattle  (Gesenius),  or  that  the  richest  should  have  no 
more  (Calvin),  but  simply  one  indefinitely  (Hitzig,  Ewald).  The  Piel  of 
tvjn  nowhere  else  signifies  to  "  keep,  own,  feed  "  (Barnes),  nor  to  hold,  pos- 
sess (Gesenius,  Ewald,  etc.).  Its  primary  meaning  is  to  give  life  originally 
(Job  33 :  4),  or  to  restore  it  after  death  (1  Sam.  2:6);  whence  by  a 
natural  transition  it  is  used  to  denote  the  preservation  of  one's  life  in  danger 
(Ps.  30 :  4)  ;  so  that  unless  we  depart  from  its  proper  meaning  here,  it 
must  denote  not  merely  the  keeping  or  raising  of  the  cow  and  sheep,  but 
their  being  saved  from  a  greater  number,  and  preserved  with  difficulty,  not 
for  want  of  pasture,  which  was  more  than  ever  plentiful,  but  from  the  pres- 
ence of  invaders  and  enemies.  Thus  understood,  the  word  throws  light 
upon  the  state  of  the  country,  as  described  in  the  context.  Hendewerk 
thinks  it  not  improbable  that  by  a  cow  and  tivo  sheep  we  are  to  understand  a 
herd  of  cows  and  two  flocks  of  sheep,  because  so  small  a  number  would  not 
yield  abundance  of  milk.  But  the  abundance  is  of  course  to  be  relatively 
understood,  with  respect  to  the  small  number  of  persons  to  be  fed,  and  is  there- 
fore an  additional  and  necessary  stroke  in  the  prophetic  picture — few  cattle 
left,  and  yet  those  few  sufficient  to  afford  milk  in  abundance  to  the  few  inhab- 
itants. This  abundance  is  expressed  still  more  strongly  by  describing  them 
as  eating  not  the  milk  itself,  but  that  which  is  produced  from  it,  and  which 


132  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

of  course  must  bear  a  small  proportion  to  the  whole ;  and  as  this  is  the  essen- 
tial idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  by  mentioning  the  HX«n3  it  matters  little 
whether  it  be  understood  to  mean  butter  (Septuagint,  etc.),  cheese  (Hende- 
werk),  cream  (Hitzig,  DeWette,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel),  or  curds 
(Gesenius,  etc.),  though  the  last  seems  to  agree  best  with  what  we  know 
of  oriental  usages.  It  is  here  mentioned  neither  as  a  delicacy  nor  as 
plain  and  ordinary  food,  but  as  a  kind  of  diet  independent  of  the  cultivation 
of  the  earth,  and  therefore  implying  a  neglect  of  tillage  and  a  pastoral  mode 
>of  life,  as  well  as  an  unusual  extent  of  pasturage,  which  may  have  reference, 
as  Barnes  suggests,  not  only  to  the  milk  but  to  the  honey.  The  rabbinical 
interpretation  of  these  verses,  as  a  promise  of  abundance  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah  after  Sennacherib's  retreat  (2  Chron.  3*2 :  27-29),  and  the  adap- 
tation of  the  same  exposition  to  the  time  of  Christ  (Grotius,  Cocceius,  etc.), 
appear  to  have  arisen  from  confounding  what  is  here  said  of  butter  and 
honey,  with  a  frequent  description  of  the  promised  land  as  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey.  But  not  to  insist  upon  the  circumstance,  that  this  is  a  literal 
and  that  a  metaphorical  description,  and  that  even  in  the  latter  the  idea  of 
abundance  is  conveyed  by  the  flowing  of  the  land  with  milk  and  honey, 
which  is  not  here  mentioned  ;  let  it  be  observed  that  even  the  abundance 
thus  asserted  of  the  promised  land  is  not  fertility,  but  the  abundance  of 
spontaneous  products,  not  dependent  upon  tillage  ;  and  that  after  Israel 
was  possessed  of  Canaan  and  had  become  an  agricultural  people,  the 
natural  emblem  of  abundance  would  no  longer  be  milk  and  honey,  but  corn 
and  wine,  or  flesh  and  fruits,  so  that  the  prospect  of  subsisting  on  the  first 
two,  if  it  did  not  suggest  the  idea  of  personal  privation,  would  suggest  that 
of  general  desolation,  or  at  least  that  of  interrupted  or  suspended  cultivation. 
Thus  Boswell,  in  the  journal  of  his  tour  with  Dr.  Johnson  to  the  Hebrides, 
observes  of  the  inhabitants  of  one  of  the  poor  islands,  that  "  they  lived  all 
the  spring  without  meal,  upon  milk  and  curds  and  whey  alone."  This 
verse,  then,  is  descriptive  of  abundance  only  as  connected  with  a  paucity  of 
people  and  a  general  neglect  of  tillage.  It  was  designed  indeed  to  be 
directly  expressive  neither  of  abundance  nor  of  poverty  (Barnes),  but  of  a 
change  in  the  condition  of  the  country  and  of  the  remaining  people,  which 
is  further  described  in  the  ensuing  context.  The  older  interpreters  were 
probably  misled  by  the  peculiar  mode  in  which  a  threatening  is  here  uttered 
in  the  tone  of  a  promise,  or  as  Knobel  expresses  it,  the  words  sound  prom- 
ising (klingen  verheissend)  but  contain  a  threat.  The  same  thing  had  been 
observed  before  by  Henderson,  and  most  of  the  recent  writers  are  agreed  in 
giving  to  the  twenty-second  verse  its  true  sense  as  a  prophecy  of  desolation. 
This  of  course  determines  that  of  the  fifteenth,  to  which  Hendewerk  sup- 
poses Isaiah  to  refer  directly,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  this  is  what  I  meant  by 
saying  that  the  child  should  eat  curds  and  honey,  for  curds  and  honey  shall 
every  one  eat  that  is  left  in  the  midst  of  the  land.' 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII.  L33 

V.  23.  Having  described  the  desolation  of  the  country  Indirectly,  by 
Ikying  what  the  food  of  the  Inhabitants  should  he,  the  Prophet  now  de- 
scribes it  more  directly,  hy  predicting  the  growth  of  thorns  and  briers, 
in  spots  which  had  been  sedulously  cultivated,  for  example  the  most  valu- 
able vineyards.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day  (that)  every 
place,  where  there  shall  be  a  thousand  vines  at  (or  for)  a  thousand  silver- 
lings  (pieces  or  shekels  of  silver),  shall  be  for  (or  become)  thorns  and 
briers,  or  shall  be  (given  up)  to  the  thorn  and  to  the  brier.  Kimchi  reverses 
the  prediction,  so  as  to  make  it  mean  that  every  place  now  full  of  thorns 
and  briers  shall  hereafter  abound  in  valuable  vines,  which  is,  of  course,  an 
impossible  construction.  Calvin  supposes  the  thousand  silverlings  or 
shekels  to  be  mentioned  as  a  very  low  price,  and  understands  the  verse 
to  mean  that  every  place  planted  with  a  thousand  vines  should,  in  these 
days  of  desolation,  be  sold  for  only  so  much,  on  account  of  the  thorns  and 
briers  which  had  overrun  them.  All  other  writers  seem  to  confine  the 
threatening  to  the  thorns  and  briers,  and  to  regard  S)03  Cjbata  as  a  part  of 
the  description  of  a  valuable  vineyard,  though  they  differ  on  the  question 
whether  this  was  the  price  for  which  the  vineyard  might  be  sold,  or  its  an- 
nual rent,  as  in  Sol.  Song  8:11,  where,  however,  it  is  said  to  be  the  price 
of  the  fruit,  and  the  number  of  vines  is  not  mentioned.  The  vines  of  the 
Johannisberg  are  valued  at  a  ducat  each,  according  to  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
who  thinks,  however,  that,  allowance  being  made  for  the  change  in  the 
value  of  money,  the  price  mentioned  in  the  text  was  probably  a  high  one, 
even  for  a  valuable  vineyard.  Henderson  computes  that  it  was  nearly 
one-half  more  than  the  price  at  which  the  vineyards  of  Mount  Lebanon  were 
sold  in  1811,  according  to  Burckhardt,  namely  a  piastre  for  each  vine. — 
The  substantive  verb  with  b  may  signify  either  to  belong  to  (Hitzig,  Ewald), 
to  be  given  up  to  (Umbreit),  or  to  become  (DeWette,  Knobel),  which  last 
is  its  most  usual  meaning.  The  irregular  repetition  of  the  verb  is  occa- 
sioned by  the  length  of  the  parenthetical  clause.  The  construction  of  the 
sentence  is  entirely  changed  in  Henderson's  version — in  every  place,  etc. 
there  shall  be  briers  and  thorns. 

V.  24.  So  complete  shall  be  the  desolation  of  these  once  favoured  spots 
that  men  shall  pass  through  them  armed  as  they  would  through  a  wilderness. 
With  arrows  and  with  bow  shall  one  (or  shall  a  man)  go  thither,  because 
thorns  and  briers  shall  the  whole  land  be.  The  essential  idea,  as  the  last 
clause  shows,  is  that  of  general  desolation  ;  there  is  no  need,  therefore,  of 
supposing  that  the  bows  and  arrows  have  exclusive  reference  to  protection 
against  enemies  (Kimchi)  or  beasts  (Jarchi)  or  robbers  (Clericus),  or  to 
hunting  (Calvin),  as  neither  is  particularly  mentioned,  and  as  it  would  be 
natural  to  carry  weapons  into  such  a  region   both  for  protection  and  the 


134  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VII. 

chase  (Lowth,  Gesenius).  It  is  no  objection  to  the  mention  of  the  latter, 
that  the  people  had  just  been  represented  as  subsisting  upon  milk  and 
honey,  since  these  two  methods  of  subsistence  often  coexist,  as  belonging  to 
the  same  state  of  society,  and  both  imply  a  general  neglect  of  tillage.  The 
exact  sense  of  the  last  clause  is  not  that  the  land  shall  become  thorns  and 
briers  (English  version),  as  in  v.  24,  but  that  it  shall  actually  be  thorns 
and  briers. 

V.  25.  Not  only  the  fields,  not  only  the  vineyards,  shall  be  overrun 
with  thorns  and  briers,  but  the  very  hills,  now  laboriously  cultivated  with 
the  hand,  shall  be  given  up  to  like  desolation.  And  all  the  hills  (i.e.  even 
all  the  hills)  which  are  digged  with  the  hoe  (because  inaccessible  to  the 
plough) — thou  shalt  not  go  (even)  there,  for  fear  of  briers  and  thorns,  and 
(being  thus  uncultivated)  they  shall  be  for  a  sending-place  of  cattle  and  a 
trampling-j)lace  of  sheep  (i.  e.  a  place  where  cattle  may  be  sent  to  pasture, 
and  which  may  be  trodden  down  by  sheep).  The  reference  is  probably  to 
the  hills  of  Judea,  anciently  cultivated  to  the  very  top,  by  means  of 
terraces  that  still  exist,  for  an  account  of  which  by  eye-witnesses,  see 
Keith's  Land  of  Israel,  chapter  xn.,  and  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  II.  p. 
187.  Thus  understood,  the  verse  merely  strengthens  the  foregoing  descrip- 
tion, by  declaring  that  even  the  most  carefully  cultivated  portions  of  the 
land  should  not  escape  the  threatened  desolation.  It  is  not  necessary, 
therefore,  to  give  "pari  in  v.  24  the  arbitrary  sense  of  lowlands  as  distin- 
guished from  the  mountains  mentioned  here  (Henderson)  ;  much  less  to 
understand  ep-irj  itself  as  meaning  mounds  or  hillocks  formed  by  the  hoe 
(Forerius).  It  is  equally  gratuitous,  and  therefore  inadmissible,  to  take 
thorns  and  briers  in  a  different  sense  from  that  which  they  have  in  the  pre- 
ceding verses,  e.  g.  in  that  of  a  thorn  hedge,  implying  that  the  vineyard 
should  no  longer  be  enclosed  (Grotius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa),  an  arbitrary 
change  which  cannot  be  justified  by  Matthew  Henry's  epigrammatic  obser- 
vation, that  the  thorns,  instead  of  growing  where  they  would  be  useful, 
should  spring  up  in  abundance  where  they  were  not  wanted.  With  this 
explanation  of  thorns  and  briers  is  connected  an  erroneous  construction  of 
#Sir\  as  a  verb  in  the  third  person,  agreeing  with  ra^?  as  its  subject — '  the 
fear  of  thorns  and  briers  shall  not  come  thither' — i.  e.  there  shall  be  no 
hinderance  to  their  growth  (Ewald),  or  no  regard  to  them  (Junius)  or  no  thorn 
hedges  (Grotius).  Kimchi  and  Abarbenel  connect  this  same  construction 
with  the  natural  and  proper  sense  of  thorns  and  briers,  and  thus  convert  the 
verse  into  a  promise  that  in  the  mountains  there  should  be  no  fear  of  deso- 
lation ;  while  Cyril  and  Calvin  make  it  a  threatening  in  the  form  of  a 
promise  (like  v.  22),  by  explaining  it  to  mean  that  even  if  the  hills  where 
the  remaining  inhabitants  take  refuge  should  be  tilled,  and  thus  escape  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII.  135 

fear  of  thorns  and  briers,  it  would  only  be  because  the  rest  of  the  country 
should  be  desolate.  The  simplest  and  most  satisfactory  construction  is  the 
one  now  commonly  adopted,  which  takes  »isn  as  the  second  person  used 
indefinitely  (thou  for  any  owe),  and  TW*  as  a  noun  used  adverbially  to 
denote  for  fear  of  which  is  more  agreeable  to  Hebrew  usage  than  to  sup- 
pose an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  yo  (Rosenmiiller).  Thus  understood,  the 
verse  continues  and  completes  the  description  of  the  general  desolation,  as 
manifested  first  by  the  people's  living  upon  milk  and  honey,  then  by  the 
growth  of  thorns  and  briers  in  the  choicest  vineyards  and  the  terraced  hills, 
and  by  the  conversion  of  these  carefully  tilled  spots  into  dangerous  solitudes, 
hunting-grounds,  and  pastures. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  prediction  of  the  overthrow  of  Syria  and  Israel  is  now  renewed  in 
the  form  of  a  symbolical  name,  to  be  inscribed  on  a  tablet  and  attested  by 
two  witnesses,  and  afterwards  applied  to  the  Prophet's  new-born  son,  whose 
progress  as  an  infant  is  made  the  measure  of  the  event,  vs.  1—4.  It  is  then 
foretold  that  the  judgment  denounced  upon  Syria  and  Israel  should  extend 
to  Judah,  as  a  punishment  for  distrust  of  God  and  reliance  upon  human 
aid,  in  consequence  of  which  the  kingdom  should  be  imminently  threatened 
with  destruction,  yet  delivered  for  the  sake  of  Immanuel,  by  whom  the 
strength  and  wisdom  of  all  enemies  should  be  alike  defeated,  vs.  5—1 0.  The 
Messiah  himself  is  then  introduced  as  speaking,  warning  the  prophet  and  the 
true  believers  neither  to  share  in  the  apprehensions  nor  to  fear  the  reproach- 
es of  the  people,  but  to  let  Jehovah  be  an  object  of  exclusive  fear  and  reve- 
rence to  them,  as  he  would  be  an  occasion  of  destruction  to  the  unbelievers, 
from  whom  the  true  sense  of  this  revelation  was  to  be  concealed,  and  re- 
stricted to  his  followers,  who,  together  with  the  prophet  and  the  Son  of  God 
himself,  should  be  for  signs  and  wonders  to  the  multitude,  while  waiting  for 
the  manifestation  of  his  presence,  and  refusing  to  consult  any  other  oracle  ex- 
cept the  word  of  God,  an  authority  despised  by  none  but  those  doomed  to 
the  darkness  of  despair,  which  is  described  as  settling  down  upon  them, 
with  a  sudden  intimation,  at  the  close,  of  a  change  for  the  better,  especially 
in  reference  to  that  part  of  the  country  which  had  been  most  afflicted  and 
despised,  vs.  11-23. 

The  Hebrew  and  English  text  differ  here  in  the  division  of  the  chapters. 


136  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII. 

A  better  arrangement  than  either  would  have  been  to  continue  the  eighth 
without  interruption  to  the  close  of  what  is  now  the  sixth  (or  seventh)  verse 
of  the  ninth  chapter,  where  a  new  division  of  the  prophecy  begins. 

V.  1.  The  prediction  of  the  overthrow  of  Syria  and  Israel,  contained 
in  ch.  7  :  8,  9,  is  here  repeated,  and  as  before  in  a  symbolical  form.  In 
order  to  excite  immediate  attention,  and  at  the  same  time  to  verify  the  pro- 
phecy, Isaiah  is  required  to  inscribe  an  enigmatical  name  on  a  large  tablet 
in  a  legible  character,  with  a  view  to  present  exhibition  and  to  subsequent 
preservation.  The  name  itself  includes  a  prophecy  of  speedy  spoliation. 
And  Jehovah  said  to  me,  take  thee  for  for  thyself)  a  great  tablet  (i.  e. 
great  in  proportion  to  the  length  of  the  inscription),  and  write  upon  it  with 
a  man's  pen  (or  stylus,  i.  e.  in  an  ordinary  and  familiar  hand),  To  Maher- 
shalal-hash-baz  (i,  e.  Haste-spoil-quick-prey).  The  name  may  also  be 
read  as  a  sentence — Hasten  spoil!  Prey  hastens.  (So  Cocceius  :  pro- 
pera  spolium,  festinavit  direptio.)  Others  take  "iriE  as  an  infinitive  (either 
used  as  such  or  instead  of  a  preterite)  on  account  of  the  b  prefixed,  which, 
however,  has  no  more  connexion  with  tjiis  than  with  the  other  words, 
being  joined  to  it  merely  as  the  first  word  in  the  sentence,  just  as  the  English 
to  might  be  prefixed  to  an  inscription.  Here,  as  in  v.  3,  Maher-shalal- 
hash-baz  is  a  name,  and  the  exhibition  of  the  tablet,  in  the  temple  (Barnes), 
or  the  market-place  (Ewald),  or  the  prophet's  house  (Knobel),  was  intended 
to  suggest  the  question,  who  is  meant  ?  It  is  therefore  less  correct  to  say 
that  the  inscription  is  afterwards  transferred  to  the  child,  than  that  the  name 
of  the  child  is  anticipated  here.  These  four  words  are  not  merely  the  head- 
ing or  title  of  the  writing  (Barnes),  but  the  writing  itself.  The  modern  lexi- 
cographers explain  'fifyt  not  as  a  derivative  of  &$,  to  roll,  and  a  synonyme 
of  rtoa,  a  volume,  but  as  a  derivative  of  rtyt  to  polish,  and  as  meaning  a 
tablet  of  metal,  or,  as  Knobel  supposes,  of  wood  covered  with  wax.  B'lR, 
the  stylus  used  in  writing  on  such  tablets.  Human  is  here  explained  by 
Hendewerk  as  meaning  common  or  ordinary  in  opposition  to  divine,  but 
by  others  more  probably  in  opposition  to  a  mode  of  writing  only  known  to 
some,  and  not  to  men  in  general ;  whether  the  allusion  be  to  a  sacred 
character  (Henderson),  or  simply  to  the  letters  used  in  books  as  distinguished 
from  those  used  in  common  life  (Ewald).  Both  the  kind  of  writing  and 
the  size  of  the  tablet  (admitting  larger  characters),  have  reference  to  its 
being  legible,  so  that  he  may  run  that  readeth  it.  (Hab.  2  :  2.) 

V.  2.  In  order  to  preclude  all  suspicion  of  its  having  been  uttered  after 
the  event,  the  prophecy  is  not  only  recorded,  but  attested  by  two  witnesses. 
And  I  (Jehovah)  will  take  to  witness  for  me  credible  ivitnesses,  to  wit, 
Uriah  the  priest,  and  Zechariah,  son  of  Jeberechiah.     These  were  not  to 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VIII.  181 

be  witnesses  of  tbe  prophet's  marriage  (Luther,  Grotius),  hut  of  his  bavi 
written  and  exhibited  the  prophecy  so  long  before  the  event.  Uriah  is  pro- 
bably the  same  who  eomnired  at  the  king's  profanation  of  the  temple  (2 
Kings,  16  :  10-16).  The  word  b*MNta  does  not  relate  to  their  true  charac- 
ter or  standing  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  to  their  credit  with  the  people,  es- 
pecially  perhaps  with  the  king,  in  which  view,  as  well  as  on  account  of 
his  official  rank,  Uriah  was  a  very  suitable  witness.  The  same  considera- 
tion makes  it  not  improbable  that  the  Zechariah  mentioned  here  was  the 
father-in-law  of  Ahaz  (2  Kings,  18:  2.  2  Chr.  29:  1),  perhaps  the  same 
that  is  mentioned  as  a  Levite  of  the  family  of  Asaph  (2  Chr.  29  :  13). 
The  Zechariah  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  26  :  5,  seems  to  have  died  before 
Lzziah.  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  was  put  to  death  between  the 
porch  and  the  altar  (Matt.  23  :  35)  long  before  this,  in  the  reign  of  Joash 
(2  Chr.  24:  20,  21).  Zechariah  the  Prophet  was  the  son  of  Berechiah, 
but  he  lived  after  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  Rabbins  and  Lightfoot  give 
to  c-^s  the  emphatic  sense  of  martyrs  ((MtQivQeg),  witnesses  for  the  truth, 
and  suppose  Uriah  to  be  the  person  who  prophesied  against  Judah,  and 
was  put  to  death  by  Jehoiakim,  about  130  years  after  the  date  of  this  predic- 
tion. But  such  an  attestation  would  have  been  wholly  irrelevant  and  useless. 
The  Vulgate  takes  the  verb  as  a  preterite  (et  adhibui  mihi  testes)  and  Ge- 
senius,  Maurer,  Knobel,  read  accordingly  ft^s&n  with  Vav  conversive.  The 
Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Peshito  make  it  imperative  (jiaoivoas  fioi  noi^aov), 
and  Hitzig  accordingly  reads  STiW.  Gesenius  formerly  preferred  an  indi- 
rect or  subjunctive  construction,  which  is  still  retained  by  Henderson,  and 
that  I  should  take  as  witnesses.  The  true  construction  is  no  doubt  the  ob- 
vious one,  and  I  will  cite  as  witnesses  (Hendewerk,  Ewald,  Umbreit) — God 
being  still  the  speaker,  and  the  matter  being  one  in  which  the  prophet  was 
concerned  only  as  his  representative,  so  that  the  ascription  of  the  act  to  God 
himself  is  not  only  admissible  but  necessary.  This  construction  also  ac- 
counts best  for  the  paragogic  form  of  the  verb,  as  expressing  strong  deter- 
mination or  fixed  purpose. 

V.  3.  The  significant  name,  before  inscribed  upon  the  tablet,  is  now  ap- 
plied to  the  Prophet's  new-born  son,  that  the  child,  as  well  as  the  inscrip- 
tion, might  remind  all  who  saw  them  of  the  prophecy.  The  execution  of 
the  previous  command  is  here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  tacitly  included  in 
the  record  of  the  command  itself.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  7:4.)  And  I  ap- 
proached unto  the  Prophetess,  and  she  conceived  and  bare  a  son,  and  Jeho- 
vah said  to  me,  Call  his  name  Maher-shalal-hash-baz.  Calvin's  suppo- 
sition that  this  passed  in  vision  is  entirely  gratuitous.  This  name,  like  Im- 
manucl,  may  be  understood  as  simply  descriptive  or  symbolical,  but  its 
actual  imposition  is  inferred  by  most  interpreters  from  verse  18,  where  the 


138  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII. 

» 
Prophet  speaks  of  himself  and  his  children  as  signs  and  wonders  in  Israel, 
with  reference,  as  they  suppose,  to  the  names  Shear-jashub  and  Maher- 
shalal-hash-baz.  The  four  ancient  versions  all  translate  the  name,  and  all, 
except  the  Targum,  with  some  variation  from  the  rendering  in  v.  1.  Most 
of  the  later  German  writers  adopt  Luther's  version,  Raubebald  Eilebeute,  but 
instead  of  the  first  word  Ewald  has  Schnellraub.  The  pluperfect  construc- 
tion, I  had  approached,  etc.,  given  by  Junius,  Gesenius,  and  others,  is  not 
only  needless  but,  according  to  Ewald,  Maurer  and  Hitzig,  ungrammatical. 
The  strange  opinion  of  Tertullian,  Basil,  Cyril  and  Jerome,  that  the  Pro- 
phetess is  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  that  this  verse  is  the  language  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  though  adopted  by  (Ecolampadius  and  others,  is  rejected  even  by 
Thomas  Aquinas.  The  Prophetess  is  probably  so  called,  not  because  she 
was  inspired  (Grotius),  or  because  she  was  to  give  the  name  Immanuel 
(Hendewerk),  or  because  she  bore  a  part  in  this  prophetical  transaction 
(Calvin),  but  because  she  was  a  prophet's  wife,  as  queen  usually  means  a 
royal  consort,  not  a  queen  suo  jure.  A  remarkable  series  of  prophetic 
names,  imposed  upon  three  children,  is  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Hosea. 

V.  4.  It  is  not  merely  by  its  name  that  the  child  is  connected  with  the 
prophecy.  The  date  of  the  event  is  determined  by  a  reference  to  the  in- 
fant's growth,  as  in  the  case  of  Immanuel.  For  before  the  child  shall  know 
(how)  to  cry  my  father  and  my  mother,  one  (or  they  indefinitely)  shall  take 
away  the  wealth  of  Damascus  and  the  spoil  of  Samaria  before  the  king  of 
Assyria,  i.  e.  into  his  presence,  to  deliver  it  to  him  (Gesenius),  or  in  trium- 
phal procession  (Calvin),  or  before  him,  i.  e.  before  he  marches  homeward 
himself  (Hendewerk),  or  simply  in  his  presence,  that  is  by  his  command  and 
under  his  direction.     The  construction  of  atis^  is  indefinite,  so  that  there  is 

T    •  ' 

no  need  of  supplying  hirr  as  the  subject.  The  time  fixed  is  that  of  the 
child's  capacity  not  to  recognize  its  parents,  or  to  talk,  but  to  utter  the 
simple  labial  sounds  by  which  in  Hebrew  as  in  many  other  languages 
father  and  mother  are  expressed.  The  time  denoted  has  been  fixed  by  Vi- 
tringa  and  Rosenmiiller  at  three  years,  by  Junius  and  most  later  writers  at  one. 
But  this  very  difference  of  judgment  seems  to  show  that  the  description  was 
intended  to  be  somewhat  indefinite,  equivalent  perhaps  to  our  familiar  phrase 
a  year  or  two,  within  which  time  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  event 
occurred.  Gesenius  alleges  that  the  prophecy  in  reference  to  Israel  was  not 
fulfilled  for  eighteen  years  (2  Kings  17  :  6),  to  which  Hengstenberg  replies 
that  Samaria  is  here  put  for  the  kingdom  and  not  for  the  capital  city.  But 
even  if  the  name  be  strictly  understood,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Sa- 
maria was  plundered  by  Tiglath-pileser  (2  Kings  15:  29)  although  not  de- 
stroyed, which  idea  is  in  fact  not  conveyed  by  the  terms  of  the  description. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII.  139 

b?n  properly  means  strength,  bill  is  specifically  applied  to  military  strength 
and  to  wealth,  which  last  is  the  meaning  here.  The  carrying  away  of  its 
wealth  does  not  necessarily  imply  any  thing  more  than  such  a  spoiling  of 
the  capital  as  might  be  expected  in  the  course  of  a  brief  but  successful  inva- 
sion. Barnes's  construction  of  the  second  clause — *  Damascus  shall  be 
borne  away  as  regards  its  riches ' — is  inconsistent  with  the  form  of  the 
original. 

V.  5.  And  Jehovah  added  to  speak  to  me  again  (or  further)  saying. 
Here,  as  in  ch.  7 :  10,  an  interval  of  time  may  be  assumed.  Hendewerk 
supposes  that  in  the  mean  time  the  Assyrians  had  approached  and  the 
invaders  been  compelled  to  withdraw  from  Judah. 

V.  6.  The  Assyrian  invasion  is  now  represented  as  a  punishment  of 
Judah  for  distrusting  the  divine  protection  and  seeking  that  of  the  Assyrians 
themselves.  The  immediate  relief  thus  secured  was  to  be  followed  by  a 
worse  calamity  produced  by  those  in  whom  they  now  confided.  Because 
this  people  (Judah,  so  called  in  token  of  divine  displeasure)  hath  forsaken 
(or  rejected  with  contempt)  the  waters  of  Shiloah  (or  Siloam,  the  only  per- 
ennial fountain  of  Jerusalem,  here  used  as  a  symbol  of  the  divine  protection) 
that  go  softly  (or  flow  gently,  unaccompanied  by  noise  or  danger),  and 
(because  there  is)  joy  with  respect  to  Rezin  and  the  son  of  Remaliah  (i.  e. 
because  the  Jews  are  exulting  in  the  retreat  of  their  invaders,  caused  by  the 
approach  of  the  Assyrians),  therefore,  etc.,  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence 
being  given  in  the  next  verse.  Steudel  supposes  the  invasion  itself  to  be 
represented  by  the  waters  of  Siloam,  and  contrasted  with  a  worse  invasion 
yet  to  come.  Because  they  despised  the  gentle  fountain,  God  would  briiiLC 
upon  them  a  mighty  river.  But  to  this  there  are  several  objections.  1 . 
The  fountain  of  Siloam  would  hardly  have  been  used  as  the  emblem  of  a 
foreign  invasion  merely  because  weak  and  unsuccessful.  2.  The  verb  ex*:, 
does  not  mean  simply  to  despise,  but  to  reject  with  contempt  something 
once  esteemed  or  entitled  to  esteem,  and  is  therefore  inapplicable  to  an 
invasion.  3.  God  himself  had  taught  them  to  despise  it  (ch.  7 :  4),  and 
would  not  therefore  have  assigned  their  doing  so  as  a  reason  for  the  punish- 
ment to  be  inflicted.  Calvin  understands  by  the  waters  of  Siloam  the  mild 
and  peaceful  government  of  God,  compared  with  the  powerful  military  sway 
of  foreign  monarchs.  Because  the  Jews  despised  their  own  advantages,  and 
admired  the  conquests  of  Pekah  and  Rezin,  therefore  God  would  cause  them 
to  experience  the  hardships  of  Assyrian  domination.  But  the  only  feelings 
which  the  Jews  can  be  supposed  to  have  experienced  with  respect  to  their 
invaders,  are  fear  at  their  approach,  and  joy  at  their  departure.  That  they 
rejoiced  at  their  success,  is  a  gratuitous  assumption  contradicted  by  the  his- 


140 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII. 


tory.  The  same  objection  lies,  with  almost  equal  force,  against  the  suppo 
sition  of  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Ewald,  and  Knobel,  that  this  sympathy  with 
the  invaders  is  not  asserted  of  the  whole  nation,  but  of  a  disaffected  party 
who  rejected  the  authority  of  the  family  of  David  (the  waters  of  Siloam) 
and  rejoiced  in  the  successes  of  the  enemy.  However  plausible  such  a  sup- 
position may  appear,  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity,  or  in  prefer- 
ence to  an  explanation  which  involves  no  such  imaginary  facts.  Henderson 
and  others  understand  by  this  people,  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  whose 
apostasy  from  the  true  religion,  and  their  rejection  of  the  theocracy, 
are  here  assigned  as  reasons  for  the  evils  threatened.  A  Jewish  pro- 
phet, speaking  or  writing  to  the  Jews,  would  of  course  be  understood  to 
mean  by  this  people  those  whom  he  addressed.  It  may  be  said  indeed  that 
this  has  reference  to  the  mention  of  Ephraim  in  the  foregoing  context  (v.  4). 
But  this  would  prove  too  much,  by  requiring  Syria  to  be  included  in  the 
charge  of  rejecting  the  waters  of  Siloam  (Umbreit),  in  which  case  we  must 
either  suppose  the  words  to  be  used  in  a  twofold  sense,  or  take  &tfE  in  that 
of  simply  despising,  which  is  inadmissible.  The  same  objection  lies,  in  a 
less  degree,  against  the  opinion  of  Barnes  and  others,  that  by  this  people  we 
are  to  understand  Israel  and  Judah  as  a  race.  This  is  favoured  by  the  fact 
that  both  these  kingdoms  are  included  in  the  threatenings  of  the  subsequent 
context.  But  the  exclusion  of  Syria  is  still  more  unnatural  if  Ephraim  is 
included.  The  true  sense  seems  to  be  that  given  by  Hitzig,  except  that  he 
regards  teitoti  as  an  incorrect  orthography  for  sto^a,  the  infinitive  of  &&a  to 
melt,  to  be  dissolved  with  fear.  c  Because  this  people  has  rejected  the 
waters  of  Siloam,  gently  flowing,  and  is  afraid  of  Rezin  and  the  son  of 
Remaliah,'  etc.  This  explanation  is  unnecessary,  as  the  same  people  who 
were  terrified  by  the  approach  of  the  invaders  would  of  course  rejoice  in 
their  departure.  The  particle  rs<  simply  denotes  the  direct  occasion  of  the 
joy.  The  more  definite  idea  of  rejoicing  over  is  suggested  by  the  context. 
For  a  full  description  of  the  fountain  of  Siloam,  and  the  localities  connected 
with  it,  see  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  I.  pp.  501-505. 

V.  7.  Therefore  (because  the  people  had  thus  ceased  to  trust  in  the 
divine  protection,  and  rejoiced  in  the  success  of  their  application  to  Assyria), 
behold  (as  if  the  event  were  actually  present),  Jehovah  (is)  bringing  up 
upon  them  the  waters  of  the  river  (i.  e.  the  Euphrates,  as  an  emblem  of  the 
Assyrian  power),  its  strong  and  many  waters  (here  contrasted  with  the 
gently  flowing  waters  of  Siloam),  to  wit,  the  Icing  of  Assyria  and  all  his 
glory  (with  particular  reference  to  military  strength  and  display),  and  it 
(the  river)  shall  come  up  over  all  its  channels  and  go  over  all  its  banks, 
which  may  either  mean  that  it  shall  transcend  its  usual  limits,  or  that  after 
submerging  Israel,  it  shall  overflow  into  Judah  also.  In  favour  of  this  last 
interpretation  is  the  language  of  the  next  verse,  and  the  fact  that  otherwise 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VIII.  Ill 

the  punishment  of  Ephraini  or  the  ten  tribes  is  not  expressly  mentioned. — 
The  oopul'dtive  conjunction  is  used  by  a  common  Hebrew  idiom  to  introduce 
the  apodosis  of  the  sentence.  The  figure  of  an  overflowing  river  is  pecu- 
liarly appropriate,  not  only  as  affording  a  striking  antithesis  to  the  fountain 
mentioned  in  the  sixth  verse,  but  because  *Wpi  is  often  used  absolutely  to 
denote  the  Euphrates,  the  great  river  of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  em- 
pires. Clericus  supposes  that  it  here  denotes  the  Tigris,  as  a  river  of  As- 
syria proper.  But  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers, 
Assyria  extended  to  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  which  Arrian  describes  as 
rising  above  its  banks  and  overflowing  zrjv  yqv  'Aggvqiuv.  The  beauty  of 
the  metaphor  is  rendered  still  more  striking  by  the  frequent  allusions,  both 
in  ancient  and  modern  writers,  to  the  actual  inundations  of  this  river.  Here,  as 
in  ch.  7 :  17,  18,  the  figures  are  explained  in  literal  expressions  by  the  Pro- 
phet himself.  Here  too  the  explanation  has  been  questioned  as  a  gloss  on 
grounds  exclusively  rhetorical.  But  every  repetition,  as  Ewald  well  ob- 
serves, makes  the  hypothesis  of  an  interpolation  more  and  more  improbable. 
Its  alleged  incongruity,  if  it  did  not  exclude  it  in  the  first  place,  must  have 
struck  the  most  uncritical  reader  on  its  second  or  third  recurrence.  Some 
suppose  an  allusion  in  triaa  to  the  pomp  of  the  oriental  kings  in  their 
marches.  But  this  is  not  known  to  have  been  an  Assyrian  usage,  and  the 
supposition  is  at  least  unnecessary.  Some  understand  by  its  channels  and 
its  bmiks  the  channels  and  banks  of  Judah  ;  but  this  construction  agrees 
neither  with  the  proper  meaning  of  the  words  nor  with  the  metaphor  of 
which  they  form  a  part.  According  to  Junius,  the  overflowing  of  the  banks 
was  designed  to  represent  the  king  of  Assyria's  violation  of  his  own  engage- 
ments in  oppressing  those  for  whose  relief  he  had  come  forth. 

V.  8.  And  it  (the  river)  shall  pass  over  (from  Syria  and  Israel)  into 
Judah,  overflow  and  pass  through  (so  as  nearly  to  submerge  it),  to  the  neck 
shall  it  reach  (but  not  above  the  head),  and  the  spreadings  of  its  wings  shall 
be  the  filling  of  thy  land,  O  Immanuell  The  English  version  disturbs  the 
metaphor  by  using  the  personal  pronoun  he  so  as  to  refer  this  verse  directly 
to  the  king,  and  not  to  the  river  which  represented  him.  It  also  makes 
Cibn  mean  to  pass  through,  which  is  really  expressed  by  W,  while  *the  for- 
mer verb  denotes  a  change  of  direction,  and  subjoins  a  threatening  against 
Judah  to  the  threatening  against  Israel.  By  the  neck,  the  Targum  under- 
stands Jerusalem,  in  which  it  is  followed  by  Calvin,  Junius,  Piscator, 
Vitringa,  Henderson  and  Barnes,  the  last  of  whom  supposes  a  distinct  allu- 
sion to  the  elevated  site  of  the  Holy  City.  Most  probably,  however,  the 
expression  was  intended  to  denote  nothing  more  than  the  imminency  of  the 
danger  by  figures  borrowed  from  a  case  of  drowning,  the  head  alone  being 
left  above  the  water.     Most  writers  suppose  the  figure  of  a  stream  to  be 


142  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII. 

exchanged  in  the  last  clause  for  that  of  a  bird,  or  for  the  description  of  an 
array  ;  but  Umbreit  and  Knobel  understand  wings  to  be  used  here,  as  often 
elsewhere,  in  the  sense  of  sides  or  lateral  extremities,  and  applied  to  the 
river  itself.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers  make  b$tif$  a  proposition,  God 
(is)  with  us,  in  favour  of  which  is  the  analogy  of  v.  9  below,  and  the  fact 
that  the  words  are  separately  written  in  most  manuscripts.  In  favour  of 
making  it  a  proper  name  is  the  analogy  of  ch.  7  :  16,  and  the  pronoun  of 
the  second  person  joined  to  the  preceding  word,  thy  land,  Immanuel ! 
Some  of  the  Rabbins  make  the  Prophet  the  object  of  address, '  thy  land  (O 
Isaiah).'  BuMhis  is  arbitrary,  and  renders  the  connexion  of  the  clauses 
very  harsh.  If  this  had  been  the  meaning,  the  Prophet  would  probably 
have  said,  '  but  God  is  with  us.'  Those  who  regard  Immanuel  as  the  name 
of  a  contemporary  child,  understand  by  thy  land  thy  native  land  (as  in 
Gen.  12:  1,  Jon.  1:  8),  and  to  the  question  why  this  child  should  be 
specially  addressed,  reply  because  he  was  a  sign  to  the  people,  and  his 
name  prophetic.  But  as  we  have  seen  that  Immanuel  is  the  Messiah,  thy 
land  must  mean  the  land  belonging  to  thee,  thy  dominion ;  or  rather  both 
ideas  are  included.  Thus  understood,  this  brief  apostrophe  involves  a 
prayer  and  promise  of  deliverance,  acsi  dixisset  terra  nihilominus  erit  tua 
o  Immanuel!  (Calvin). 

V.  9.  He  now  turns  to  the  enemies  of  Judah  and  assures  them  of  the 
failure  of  their  hostile  plans.  The  prediction,  as  in  ch.  6  :  9,  is  clothed  in 
the  form  of  an  ironical  command  or  exhortation.  Be  wicked  (i.  e.  indulge 
your  malice,  do  your  worst)  and  be  broken  (disappointed  and  confounded), 
and  (that  not  only  Syria  and  Israel,  but)  give  ear  all  remote  parts  of  the 
earth  (whoever  may  attack  the  chosen  people),  gird  yourselves  (i.  e.  arm 
and  equip  yourselves  for  action)  and  be  broken,  gird  yourselves  and  be 
broken  (the  repetition  implying  the  certainty  of  the  event).  The  first  verb 
(*i3h)  has  been  variously  derived  from  nsn,  »fn,  and  3®n,  and  explained  to 
mean  associate  yourselves  (Targum,  Vulgate,  etc.),  break  and  be  broken 
(Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  etc.),  make  a  noise  or  rage  (Henderson).  This  last 
is  given  by  Gesenius  in  the  second  edition  of  his  German  version ;  in  the 
first,  an*d  in  his  latest  Lexicons,  he  gives  the  verb  its  usual  sense  of  being  evil 
or  malignant,  which  is  also  expressed  by  Luther  (seyd  bose  ihr  Volker !) 
It  is  here  equivalent  to  do  your  worst.  Seeker  and  Lowth,  on  the  authori- 
ty of  the  Septuagint,  read  isn  know  ye,  corresponding  to  wan  hear  ye. 
Hendewerk  and  Knobel  suppose  Syria  and  Israel  to  be  exclusively  ad- 
dressed ;  but  this  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  second  clause.  The  fail- 
ure or  disappointment  threatened  is  of  course  that  of  their  ultimate  design  to 
overthrow  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of 
partial  and  temporary  successes. 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VIII.  1  13 


V.  10.  Not  only  their  strength  but  their  sagacity  should  be  confounded. 
Devise  a  plan,  and  it  shall  be  defeated  (nullified  or  brought  to  nought), 
speak  a  word  (whether  a  proposition  or  an  order),  and  it  shall  not  stand  (or 
be  carried  into  execution) 9fif  (hnmanucl)  God  (is)  ivith  us.  Junius  and 
Tremellius  make  the  last  word  a  proper  name,  as  in  v.  8 — '  Loquimini 
verbum  et  non  existet,  nam  Himmanuelis  (existet  verbum).'  This  con- 
struction is  too  forced  to  be  even  called  ingenious.  The  truth  is  that  even 
as  a  name  Immanuel  contains  a  proposition,  and  that  here  this  proposition  is 
distinctly  announced,  but  with  a  designed  allusion  to  the  person  whom  the 
name  describes.  As  if  he  had  said,  •'  the  assurance  of  your  safety  is  the 
great  truth  expressed  by  the  name  of  your  deliverer,  to  wit,  that  God  is  with 
us.'  The  mere  retention  of  the  Hebrew  word  could  not  convey  its  sense 
in  this  connexion  to  the  English  reader. 

V.  11.  The  triumphant  apostrophe  in  v.  10  is  now  justified  by  an  ap- 
peal to  the  divine  authority.  I  have  reason  to  address  our  enemies  in  this 
tone,  for  thus  said  Jehovah  to  me  in  strength  of  hand  (i.  e.  when  his  hand 
was  strong  upon  me,  when  I  was  under  the  influence  of  inspiration),  and 
instructed  me  away  from  walking  in  the  way  of  this  people  (i.  e.  warned 
me  not  to  follow  the  example  of  the  unbelieving  Jews).  When  one  is 
spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  inspired,  it  is  said  not  only  that  the  spirit  was 
upon  him  (Ezek.  11  :  5),  but  also  that  the  hand  of  Jehovah  was  upon  him 
(Ezek.  1:3.  3  :  22.  33  :  32.  37  :  1),  and  in  one  case  at  least  that  it  was 
strong  upon  him  (Ezek  3  :  14).  Hence  strength  of  hand  may  have  the 
sense  of  inspiration,  and  the  whole  phrase  here  employed  be  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  the  New  Testament  expressions  iv  nvsvftaTi  (Rev.  1 :  10),  iv 
ixaiuGEi  (Acts  11:  5),  iv  dvvafiei  xcu  nvevfiati  ayi($  (1  Thess.  1:5). 
Henderson  is  right  in  saying  that  the  translation  taking  me  by  the  hand  can- 
not be  justified,  but  wrong  in  representing  it  as  "  the  rendering  of  our 
common  version,"  the  text  of  which  has  with  a  strong  hand,  and  the  mar- 
gin in  strength  of  hand,  the  literal  translation,  *Vffi  is  explained  by 
Gesenius  as  a  future  Kal  of  unusual  form,  by  Ewald  as  a  preterite  Piel  with 
an  unusual  union-vowel.  Gesenius  connects  it  with  the  phrase  before  it 
(cwhen  his  hand  was  strong  upon  me,  and  he  warned  me,'  etc).  Others 
more  probably  with  *>ex  ni  ('  thus  spake  Jehovah  and  warned  me,'  etc.). 
The  author  of  this  communication  is  supposed  by  some  interpreters  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  for  reasons  which  will  be  explained  below. 

V.  12.  The  words  of  God  himself  are  now  recorded.  Saying,  ye 
shall  not  call  conspiracy  (or  treason)  every  thing  which  this  people  calleth 
conspiracy  (or  treason),  and  its  fear  ye  shall  not  fear  nor  be  afraid,  ■rtjg, 
according  to  etymology  and-  usage,  is  a  treasonable  combination  or  conspi- 


144  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII. 

racy.  It  is  elsewhere  constantly  applied  to  such  a  combination  on  the  part 
of  subjects  against  their  rulers  (2  Kings  11  :  14.  12:  21.  14:  19.  15:  30). 
It  is  not  strictly  applicable,  therefore,  to  the  confederacy  of  Syria  and  Israel 
against  Judah  (Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Henderson,  etc.),  nor  to  that  of 
Ahaz  with  the  king  of  Assyria  (Barnes,  etc.).  It  would  be  more  appro- 
priate to  factious  combinations  among  the  Jews  themselves  (Aben  Ezra, 
Kimchi),  if  there  were  any  trace  of  these  in  history.  The  correct  view  of 
the  passage  seems  to  be  this.  The  unbelieving  fears  of  the  people  led 
them  to  seek  foreign  aid.  From  this  they  were  dissuaded  by  the  Prophet 
and  his  followers,  who  regarded  it  as  a  violation  of  their  duty  to  Jehovah. 
This  opposition,  like  the  conduct  of  Jeremiah  during  the  Babylonian  siege, 
was  regarded  by  the  king  and  his  adherents  as  a  treasonable  combination 
to  betray  them  to  their  enemies.  But  God  himself  commands  the  prophet 
and  the  true  believers  not  to  be  affected  by  this  false  reproach,  not  to  regard 
the  cry  of  treason  or  conspiracy,  nor  share  in  the  real  or  pretended  terrors 
of  the  unbelievers. 

V.  13.  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  him  shall  ye  sanctify  (i.  e.  regard  and  treat 
as  a  Holy  God,  and  as  the  Holy  One  of  Israel),  and  he  shall  be  your  fear, 
and  he  your  dread,  i.  e.  the  object  of  these  feelings.  If  they  felt  as  they 
ought  towards  God,  as  supreme  and  almighty,  and  as  their  own  peculiar 
God,  with  whom  they  were  united  in  a  national  covenant,  they  could  not 
so  distrust  him  as  to  be  alarmed  at  the  approach  of  any  earthly  danger. 
■pnsa  may  either  be  an  active  participle  (that  which  terrifies  you)  or  a 
verbal  noun  resembling  fcOia  in  its  mode  of  derivation.  The  collocation 
of  the  words  makes  the  sentence  more  emphatic.  Him  shall  ye  fear  is  sub- 
stantially equivalent  to  Him  alone  shall  ye  fear.  Thus  explained,  the  pas- 
sage is  at  once  a  condemnation  of  the  terror  inspired  by  the  approach  of  the 
two  kings,  and  of  the  application,  which  it  had  occasioned,  to  Assyria  for 
aid  against  them. 

V.  14.  And  he  (Jehovah)  shall  be  for  (or  become)  a  holy  thing  (an 
object  to  be  sanctified)  and  for  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  for  a  rock  of 
offence  (i.  e.  a  stone  to  strike  against  and  stumble  over)  to  the  two  houses 
of  Israel  (Ephraim  and  Judah),  for  a  gin  (or  trap)  and  for  a  snare  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  8M{5»  is  by  many  understood  to  mean  a  sanctu- 
ary, in  the  specific  sense,  or  with  the  accessory  idea,  of  a  refuge  or  asylum 
(Paulus,  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Winer,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  Barnes, 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  Henderson).  But  although  the  temples  of  the  gods  were 
so  regarded  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  no  such  usage  seems  to  have  pre- 
vailed among  the  Christians  till  the  time  of  Constantine  (Bingham's  Orig. 
Eccles.  vni.  11,1).     As  to  the  Jews,  the  only  case  which  has  been  cited 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  VIII.  145 

to  establish  such  a  practice  seems  to  prove  the  contrary.  So  far  was 
the  altar  from  protecting  Joab,  that  he  was  not  even  dragged  away  but 
killed  upon  the  spot  (*2  Kings  2:  28).  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  an  allu- 
sion to  the  stone  which  Jacob  called  Bethel  or  the  residence  of  God  (Gen. 
28:  19),  the  same  object  being  here  described  as  a  sanctuary  and  as  a  stont 
of  stumbling.  But  although  this  idea  may  be  included,  the  word  has  pro- 
bably a  wider  meaning,  and  was  meant  to  bear  the  same  relation  to  iO"Hpn 
(in  v.  13)  that  ir¥«a  bears  to  iHTn  and  y^-vo  to  "M^sr.  God  was  the 
only  proper  object  to  be  dreaded,  feared,  and  sanctified,  i.  e.  regarded  as  a 
holy  being  in  the  widest  and  the  most  emphatic  sense.  Thus  explained, 
the  Hebrew  ttS^o  corresponds  almost  exactly  to  the  Greek  to  ayiov,  the 
t  term  applied  to  Christ  by  the  angel  who  announced  his  birth  (Luke  1 :  35). 
In  1  Peter  2 :  7,  where  this  ver^  passage  is  applied  to  Christ,  /}  ripjj  seems 
to  be  employed  as  an  equivalent  to  tiypv  as  here  used.  To  others  he  is  a 
stone  of  stumbling,  but  to  you  who  believe  he  is  rj  rytg,  something  precious, 
something  honoured,  something  looked  upon  as  holy.  The  same  applica- 
tion of  the  words  is  made  by  Paul  in  Rom.  9 :  33.  These  quotations  seem 
to  show  that  the  prophet's  words  have  an  extensive  import,  and  are  not  to  be 
restricted  either  to  his  own  times,  or  the  time  of  Christ.  The  doctrine  of 
the  text  is,  that  even  the  most  glorious  exhibitions  of  God's  holiness,  i.  e. 
of  his  infinite  perfection,  may  occasion  the  destruction  of  the  unbeliever. 
The  most  signal  illustration  of  this  general  truth  was  that  afforded  in  the 
advent  of  the  Saviour.  It  was  frequently  exemplified,  however,  in  the 
interval,  and  one  of  these  exemplifications  was  afforded  by  the  conduct 
of  the  unbelieving  Jews  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  to  whom  the  only  power 
that  could  save  them  was  converted  by  their  own  unbelief  into  a  stone 
of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence.  The  same  idea  is  then  expressed 
by  another  simple  and  familiar  figure,  that  of  a  snare  or  trap.  Both 
figures  naturally  suggest  the  idea  of  inadvertence  and  unforeseen  ruin. 
The  two  houses  of  Israel  are  not  the  two  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai, 
or  the  kingdom  of  Israel  and  the  faction  that  favoured  it  in  Judah,  both 
which  are  rabbinical  conceits,  but  the  two  rival  kingdoms  of  Judah  and 
Ephraim,  here  put  together  to  describe  the  whole  race  or  nation  of  Israel. 
The  sense  is  not  that  Jehovah  would  be  sanctified  by  Judah,  and  become  a 
stumbling-block  to  Israel  ;  but  that  to  some  in  either  house  or  family  these 
opposite  events  would  happen.  The  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  are  distinctly 
mentioned  as  the  most  conspicuous  and  influential  members  of  the  nation, 
just  as  Jerusalem  itself  is  sometimes  mentioned  in  connexion  with  Judah, 
which  really  included  it.     (Vide  supra  ch.  1:1.) 

V.   15.     This  verse  completes  the  threatening  by  an  explicit  declara- 
tion that  Jehovah  would  not  only  be  a  stumbling-block  and  snare  to  the 

10 


146  ISAIAH.   CHAP.  VIII. 

houses  of  Israel,  but  that  many  should  actually  fell  and  be  ensnared  and 
broken.  And  many  shall  stumble  over  them  (the  stone  and  snare) — or  among 
them  (the  children  of  Israel) — and  fall,  and  be  broken,  and  be  snared,  and  be 
taken.  Gesenius  and  most  of  the  later  writers  refer  na  to  the  stone,  rock,  etc. ; 
but  Ewald  and  most  of  the  older  writers  to  the  people.  The  first  construc- 
tion points  out  more  distinctly  the  occasion  of  the  threatened  ruin,  the  last 
the  persons  whom  it  should  befall ;  the  general  sense  remains  the  same  in 
either  case. 

V.  16.  Bind  up  the  testimony,  seal  the  law,  in  my  disciples.  These 
are  not  the  words  of  the  Prophet  speaking  in  his  own  person,  but  a  com- 
mand addressed  to  him  by  God,  or  as  some  suppose  by  the  Messiah,  the  • 
ti^pE  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse.  \  itringa  explains  "to  as  the  imper- 
ative of  *rti  to  form,  delineate,  inscribe.  The  command  will  then  be  to 
inscribe  the  revelation  in  the  hearts  of  the  disciples.  It  is  commonly 
agreed,  however,  that  the  root  is  *hs  to  bind,  and  that  the  prophet  is  com- 
manded to  tie  up  a  roll  or  volume,  and  to  seal  it,  thereby  closing  it.  By 
law  and  testimony  here  we  may  either  understand  the  prophetic  inscription  in 
v.  1,  or  the  whole  preceding  context,  considered  as  included  in  the  general 
sense  of  revelation,  as  God's  testimony  to  the  truth  and  as  a  laiv  or  declara- 
tion of  his  will.  The  disciples,  or  those  taught  of  God,  are  supposed  by 
some  to  be  Uriah  and  Zechariah,  the  two  witnesses  named  in  v.  2 :  by 
others  the  sons  of  the  prophets  or  literal  disciples  of  Isaiah  ;  but  it  probably 
means  the'  better  portion  of  the  people,  those  truly  enlightened  because 
taught  of  God  (ch.  54:  13),  to  whom  the  knowledge,  of  this  revelation,  or 
at  least  of  its  true  meaning,  was  to  be  restricted.  It  is  probable,  therefore, 
that  the  preposition  before  ■'■tfifc  does  not  mean  to  or  for  or  with  or  through, 
but  either  among  or  in,  i.  e.  in  their  minds  or  hearts.  The  act  described  is 
not  that  of  literally  binding  and  sealing  up  a  material  record,  but  that  of 
spiritually  closing  and  depositing  the  revelation  of  God's  will  in  the  hearts  of 
those  who  were  able  and  willing  to  receive  it,  with  allusion  at  the  same 
time  to  its  concealment  from  all  others.  Kimchi  regards  these  as  the  words 
of  the  Prophet — nothing  now  remains  but  to  bind  and  seal  the  testimony. 
This,  however,  even  if  we  make  "to  an  infinitive,  is  a  very  harsh  con- 
struction. 

V.  17.  And  I  (the  Messiah)  will  wait  for  Jehovah  that  hideth  his 
face  from  the  house  of  Jacob,  and  will  expect  him.  Most  writers  make 
these  the  words  of  the  Prophet ;  but  since  he  is  addressed  in  the  verse  pre- 
ceding, without  any  intimation  of  a  change  of  speaker  here,  and  since  the 
next  verse  is  quoted  in  Heb.  2 :  1 3,  as  the  words  of  the  Messiah,  it  seems 
better  to  assume,  with  Cocceius  and   Henderson,  that  throughout  this  pas- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   VIII.  147 

sage  the  Messiah  is  the  speaker.  The  phrase  to  wait  yponhns  changed  its 
meaning  since  the  date  of  the  English  version,  the  prominent  idea  betas 

now  that  of  service  and  attendance,  not  as  of  old  that  of  expectation,  which 
is  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  verb.  God's  hiding  his  face  from  the  house 
of  Jacob  implies  not  only  outward  troubles  but  the  withholding  of  divine 
illumination,  indirectly  threatened  in  the  verse  preceding.  The  house  of 
Jacob  is  the  whole  race  of  Israel,  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  Judah. 
The  thing  to  be  expected  is  the  fulness  of  time  when  the  Messiah,  no  longer 
revealed  merely  to  a  few,  should  openly  appear.  For  a  time  the  import  of 
God's  promises  shall  be  concealed  from  the  majority,  and  during  that  inter- 
val Messiah  shall  wait  patiently  until  the  set  time  has  arrived. 

V.  18.  Behold,  I  and  (he  children  which  Jehovah  hath  given  me  (are) 
for  signs  and  for  wonders  in  Israel  from  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  (One)  dwell- 
ing in  Mount  Zion.  Luther  supplies  a  verb  in  the  first  clause — f  Behold, 
here  am  I  and  the  children,  etc.'  Augusti  repeats  a  verb  from  the  preced- 
ing verse —  *  I  and  my  children  trust  in  the  Lord.'  Most  writers  supplv 
are  alter  given  me — CI  and  my  children  are  for  signs,  etc'  From  Jeho- 
vah, i.  e.  sent  and  appointed  by  him.  Of  the  whole  verse  there  are  two 
distinct  interpretations.  1.  According  to  Kimchi,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius. 
Ewald,  Barnes,  and  others,  Isaiah  is  the  speaker,  and  the  children  meant  are 
his  two  sons  Shear-jashub  and  Maher-shalal-hash-baz,  to  which  some  add 
Immanuel.  As  all  these  names,  and  that  of  the  Prophet  himself,  are  signi- 
ficant, it  is  supposed  that  for  this  reason  he  and  his  children  are  said  to  be 
signs  and  wonders,  personified  prophecies  to  Israel,  from  Jehovah,  who  had 
caused  the  names  to  be  imposed.  2.  According  to  Henderson  and  manv 
older  writers,  these  are  the  words  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  children  are  his 
spiritual  seed  (Isai.  53 :  10),  whom  the  Father  had  given  him  (John  6 : 
37,  39.  10:  29.  17  :  6,  7,  9,  11,  12).  The  great  argument  in  favour  of 
this  last  interpretation  is  the  application  of  the  verse  to  Christ  by  Paul 
(Heb.  2:  13),  not  as  an  illustration  but  an  argument,  a  proof,  that  Christ 
partook  of  the  same  nature  with  the  persons  called  his  children  and  his 
brethren.'  It  is  true  that  many  who  regard  Isaiah  as  the  speaker  suppose 
him  to  have  been  a  type  of  Christ  in  this  transaction.  But  a  double  sense 
ought  not  to  be  assumed  where  a  single  one  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
context,  and  sufficient  to  explain  all  apparent  contradictions,  as  in  this  case, 
where  admitting  that  the  Messiah  is  the  speaker,  we  have  no  ellipsis  to 
supply,  and  no  occasion  to  resort  to  the  hypothesis  either  of  a  type  or  an 
accommodation.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  restrict  the  terms,  with 
Henderson,  to  the  period  of  the  advent,  and  to  our  Saviour's  personal  fol- 
lowers. Even  before  he  came  in  the  flesh,  he  and  his  disciples,  i.  e.  all 
who  looked  for  his  appearing,  were  signs  and  wonders,  objects  of  contemp- 
tuous astonishment,  and  at  the  same  time  pledges  of  the  promise. 


148  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  VIII. 


V.  19.  And  when  they  (indefinitely  any  one,  or  definitely  the  unbe- 
lievers) shall  say  to  you  (the  disciples  and  children  of  Messiah,  who  is  still 
speaking),  seek  unto  (i.  e.  consult  as  an  oracle)  the  spirits  (or  the  spirit- 
masters,  those  who  have  subject  or  familiar  spirits  at  command)  and  to  the 
wizards  (wise  or  knowing  ones),  the  chirpers  and  the  mutter ers  (alluding 
to  the  way  in  which  the  heathen  necromancers  invoked  their  spirits,  or 
uttered  their  responses),  should  not  a  people  seelc  to  (or  consult)  its  God, 
for  the  living  (i.  e.  in  behalf  of  the  living  should  it  resort)  to  the  dead  ? 
Grotius  explains  .the  last  clause  as  a  continuation  of  the  speech  of  the  idol- 
aters— 'Consult  familiar  spirits;  ought  not  a  people  to  consult  its  gods.?' 
But  since  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Israel,  such  an  argument  would  defeat 
itself.  It  is  better  to  regard  this  clause  as  the  reply  of  the  believing 
Jews  to  those  who  tempted  them.  Ewald  and  others  give  i?s  the  meaning 
of  instead — '  Should  a  people  consult  the  dead  instead  of  the  living  God  ?' 
It  is  more  consistent  with  the  usage  of  the  language  to  take  the  preposition 
in  the  sense  of  for,  i.  e.  for  the  benefit  or  in  behalf  of  '  When  you,  my 
disciples,  are  invited  by  superstitious  sinners  to  consult  pretended  wizards, 
consider  (or  reply)  that  as  the  heathen  seek  responses  from  their  gods,  so 
you  ought  to  consult  Jehovah,  and  not  be  guilty  of  the  folly  of  consulting 
senseless  idols  or  dead  men  for  the  instruction  of  the  living.'  Henderson 
supposes  the  Prophet  to  be  speaking  in  his  own  person  ;  but  if  the  Messiah 
is  the  speaker  in  v.  18,  it  is  gratuitous  and  therefore  arbitrary  to  suppose 
another  speaker  to  be  introduced  without  any  intimation  of  the  change. 

V.  20.  Instead  of  resorting  to  these  unprofitable  and  forbidden  sources, 
the  disciples  of  Jehovah  are  instructed  to  resort  to  the  laiv  and  to  the  testi- 
mony (i.  e.  to  divine  revelation,  considered  as  a  system  of  belief  and  as  a  rule 
of  duty) — if  they  speak  (i.  e.  if  any  speak)  not  according  to  this  word  (an- 
other name  for  the  revealed  will  of  God),  it  is  he  to  whom  there  is  no 
dawn,  or  morning  (i.  e.  no  relief  from  the  dark  night  of  calamity). — The 
first  clause  is  elliptical.  Cocceius  alone  connects  it  immediately  with  what 
precedes,  and  understands \h  as  meaning  besides — '  in  addition  to  the  law  and 
the  testimony  which  we  have  already.'  Others  supply  a  new  verb,  return, 
adhere,  come,  go,  etc.  It  is  best,  however,  to  repeat  WJ'Ift  from  the  preced- 
ing verse,  especially  as  this  verb  is  elsewhere  followed  by  b  in  the  same 
sense.  (See  2  Chron.  17  :  3,  4.  Comp.  Job  10  :  6.) — Piscator  violates 
the  accents  by  separating  kVbk  from  liajr.  <  If  not  (i.  e.  if  they  will  not 
come  to  the  law  and  the  testimony),  let  them  say,'  etc.  Junius  takes  xb  ex 
as  equivalent  to  x?n,  which  it  never  is  unless  another  interrogation  precedes. 
Knobel  refers  to  the  xbn  in  v.  19  ;  but  this  is  too  remote,  and  is  moreover 
separated  from  xb  ex  by  the  first  clause  of  v.  20.  Kimchi,  Abarbenel,  Coc- 
ceius, Hitzig,  Maurer,  make  xb  ex  the  common  elliptical  formula  of  swearing 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VIII.  1  19 

— '  if  they  will  not  say,'  i.  e.  they  surely  will  say.  Ewald  adopts  the  same 
construction,  and  rx  plains  the  verse  to  mean  that  when  they  are  reduced  to 
extremity  (as  those  who  have  no  dawn)  they  will  begin  too  late  to  speak 
According  to  this  wordy  i.  e.  join  in  the  appeal  to  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony, which  they  now  despise.  Umbreit  modifies  this  interpretation  by 
giving  ox  its  strict  conditional  meaning,  and  continuing  the  sentence  through 
the  next  verse — '  If  they  do  not  thus  speak,  to  whom  there  is  no  morning, 
then  they  must  pass  through  the  land,  etc' — ifc'K,  which  is  properly  the  rela- 
tive pronoun,  is  omitted  by  the  Vulgate,  and  explained  in  the  English  ver- 
sion and  by  Barnes  as  a  causal  particle.  DeDieu,  Vitringa,  and  some 
others  make  it  a  particle  of  asseveration,  certainly,  surely ;  Gesenius  the 
sign  of  the  apodosis,  then  there  is  no  dawn  to  them  ;  J.  H.  Michaelis,  a  sub- 
stitute for  ^3,.  but  in  the  sense  of  that,  i  know  ye  that.'  So  the  Dutch  ver- 
sion, 'it  shall  come  to  pass  that.'  All  these  are  needless  and  therefore  in- 
admissible departures  from  the  ordinary  usage.  Of  those  who  give  the 
word  its  proper  meaning  as  a  relative  pronoun,  some  refer  it  todhe  noun 
immediately  preceding — this  word  which  (Lowth) — others  to  the  people  or 
to  some  individual  among  them — they  who  have  or  he  who  has  no  morn- 
ing (Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit).  But  the  best  construction  seems  to  be  that 
of  Hendewerk,  who  supplies  the  substantive  verb  before  the  relative,  *  they 
are  one  who  has  no  morning,'  or  better  still,  '  it  is  he  who  has  (or  they  who 
have)  no  morning.'  None  can  speak  inconsistently  with  God's  word — or. 
none  can  refuse  to  utter  this  word,  viz.  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony 
— but  one  whom  God  has  abandoned — "  If  our  gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to 
them  that  are  lost."  (2  Cor.  4  :  3.)  Quern  Deus  vult  perdere  prius  de- 
mentat.  Lowth  renders  "ntu  obscurity,  from  the  analogy  of  intu  black  and 
-lima  blackness.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Dathe,  and  Augusti,  make  it  equivalent 
to  the  Arabic  ^gt,  meaning  magic — '  His  word  in  which  there  is  no  magic/ 
i.  e.  no  deception.  But  the  Hebrew  word  is  never  used  in  this  sense. 
Calvin,  the  English  version,  Barnes  and  others,  give  it  the  general  sense  of 
light — '  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  (i.  e.  knowledge  or  sound  judgment)  in 
them.'  But  according  to  usage,  the  word  means  specifically  morning-light, 
the  dawn  of  day  succeeding  night,  and  is  so  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  (matu- 
tina  lux),  Luther  (Morgenrothe),  and  most  modern  writers.  By  this  Vi- 
tringa understands  the  morning  of  the  resurrection,  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  the 
epiphany  of  Christ.  But  as  night  is  a  common  figure  for  calamity,  the 
dawn  will  naturally  signify  its  termination,  the  return  of  better  times.  (See 
ch.  58 :  8.  47  :  11.  Job  11:  17.)  They  may  be  said  to  have  no  dawn,  for 
whom  there  is  nothing  better  in  reserve. 

* 

V.  21.  And  they  (the  people)  shall  pass  through  it  (the  land)  hardly 
bestead  (i.  e.  distressed)  and  hungry ;  and  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass) 


150  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII. 

that  when  they  are  hungry  they  shall  fret  themselves,  and  curse  their  king 
and  their  God,  and  shall  look  upward.  Those  interpreters  who  make  the 
whole  of  the  preceding  verse  conditional,  explain  the  1  at  the  beginning 
of  this  as  the  sign  of  the  apodosis — '  if  they  speak  not,  etc.  then  shall 
'they  pass,  etc'  So  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Dathe,  and  Augusti.  The  latter  sup- 
•  plies  people  as  the  subject  of  "«$  ;  Lowth  and  the  Dutch  Version,  every  one 
of  them  ;  but  this*  is  unnecessary.  The  verbs,  though  singular  in  form,  like 
■ft  in  the  preceding  verse,  refer  to  the  subject  of  the  plural  irtijk?.  Jerome 
repeats  ^intf)  as  the  subject  of  ^22  (lux  pertransibit)  light  shall  pass  through 
the  land,  but  not  continue  in  it.' — Through  it,  not  the  condition  just  de- 
scribed (Schroeder),  nor  the  law  (either  in  the  sense  of  searching  or  in  that 
of  transgressing  it),  nor  the  earth  or  the  gentile  part  of  it  (as  some  of  the 
Jews  explain  it),  nor  Zion  mentioned  in  v.  18  (Cocceius),  but  the  land  of 
Judah,  which  though  not  expressly  mentioned  till  the  next  verse,  is  tacitly 
referred  to  by  a  common  Hebrew  idiom.  (See  Ps.68  :  15.  87  :  1.)  Grotius 
repeats  His  favourite  suggestion,  that  the  Prophet  pointed  to  the  ground 
when  he  said  tta,  so  that  the  gesture  and  the  word  together  meant  this  land 
— tvtipi  is  not  hardened  in  a  moral  sense,  but  hardly  treated  or  distressed, 
as  appears  from  the  addition  of  3§"J.  This  last  is  not  expressive  of  bodily 
hunger  (Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Maurer),  nor  of  spiritual  famine  (Cocceius)  ;  nor 
is  it  a  mere  figure  for  the  absence  of  all  comfort  and  tranquillity  of  mind 
(Vitringa),  but  a  term  implying  destitution  both  of  temporal  and  spiritual 
good  (J.  H.  Michaelis).  Calvin,  Lowth,  and  Barnes,  understand  tyjfcntl  as 
expressing  self-reproach  or  anger  with  themselves ;  but  this  is  not  consistent 
with  the  subsequent  description  of  their  desperate  impenitence.  The  reflex- 
ive form,  which  occurs  nowhere  else,  more  probably  denotes  to  excite  one's 
self  to  anger.  His  king  is  not  his  earthly  sovereign,  the  king  of  Judah 
(Grotius),  of  Judah  or  Israel  as  the  case  might  be  (Hitzig),  or  his  idol,  par- 
ticularly Moloch  or  Milcom,  names  derived  from  rfm  (Targum,  Calvin,  Ju- 
nius), but  Jehovah  considered  as  the  king  of  Israel.  So  too  v*rf>$  is  not  his 
false  god,  his  idol,  but  the  God  whom  he  was  bound  to  serve,  his  God, 
who  at  the  same  time  was  his  king  (Henderson).  As  the  verb  to  curse 
does  not  elsewhere  take  the  preposition  a  as  a  connective,  Cocceius  proposes 
to  translate  the  phrase  he  shall  curse  by  his  king  and  by  his  God,  by 
which  he  seems  to  understand  the  conduct  of  the  Jews,  who  at  one  time 
cursed  Caesar  in  Jehovah's  name,  and  at  another  time  rejected  Christ  saying, 
We  have  no  king  but  Caesar !  Thus  they  alternately  cursed  their  king  in 
God's  name,  and  cursed  God  in  their  king's.  The  act  of  looking  up  is  by 
some  regarded  as  a  sign  of  penitence  or  of  conversion  from  idols  to  the  true 
God  ;  but  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  the  next  verse.  Junius, 
Piscator,  and  the  Dutch  annotators,  connect  it  with  the  cursing  as  an 
accompanying  gesture—'  they  shall  curse  their  king  and  their  god,  looking 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   VIII.  151 

up.'     But  this  clause  is  really  in  close  connexion  with  the  first  of  th 
verse,  and  hoth  together  must  he   understood  as  indicating  utter  perplexity 
and  ahsolute  despair  of  help  from  God  or  man,  from  heaven  or  earth,  from 
above  or  below. 

V.  22.  And  to  the  earth  he  shall  look,  and  behold  distress  and  darkness, 
dimness  of  anguish,  and  into  darkness  (he  shall  be)  driven — or,  the  dimness 
of  anguish  and  of  darkness  is  dispelled.  Heaven  and  earth  are  here  opposed 
to  one  another,  as  sea  and  land  are  in  ch.  5  :  30.  Distress  and  darkness  are 
here  identified,  as  distress  and  light  are  there  contrasted.  Junius  and  Hender- 
son explain  CJW3  as  a  participle,  corresponding  to  rnja  in  the  last  clause  (dark- 
ened with  distress,  driven  into  gloom)  ;  but  there  is  no  such  participial  form. 
Cocceius  explains  it  as  a  noun  denoting  the  dizziness  and  dimness  of  sight 
produced  by  great  distress  (vertigo  arctationis),  which  may  also  be  the 
meaning  of  the  Septuagint  version  (axoiog  wote  [iq  pJnen).  The  true  sense 
of  the  Hebrew  word  is  outward  and  inward  gloom,  distress  of  circumstances 
and  despair  of  mind.  It  is  separated  from  what  follows  by  Calvin  (caligo, 
angustia)  and  Barnes  (gloom,  oppression),  but  is  really  a  construct  form 
iroverning  P£&«  As  the  latter  originally  signifies  pressure  or  compression, 
Gesenius  explains  the  phrase  to  mean  darkness  of  compression,  i.  e.  dense 
or  compact  darkness.  But  n^W  is  here  (as  in  Isai.  30 :  6.  Prov.  1  :  27)  a 
synonyme  of  irTOt,  both  denoting  straitened  circumstances  and  a  correspond- 
ino-  state  of  mind. — The  Peshito  translates  nw  as  an  active  verb,  and  the 
Vulgate  as  an  active  participle  (caligo  persequens).  The  Targum,  Coc- 
ceius, and  Vitringa,  suppose  the  passive  participle  to  be  here  used#as  an 
abstract  noun  (caligo,  impulsio).  Saadias,  Munster,  Barnes,  and  others, 
make  rttva  an  epithet  of  r&ex  ('obscuritas  impulsa,'  'deepened  darkness '), 
but  the  latter  word  is  feminine.  Ix>wth  as  usual  cuts  the  knot  by  proposing 
to  read  either  -sa  or  htfija,  and  Kocher  by  taking  the  latter  as  a  neuter 
noun  in  apposition  with  the  former.  Jarehi,  Kimchi,  Calvin,  Junius,  Ro- 
senmuller,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and*  others,  refer  rn:^  to  the  people  or  the 
person  who  is  the  subject  of  the  verb  t^JE,  and  either  supply  a  preposition 
before  5"&sa,  or  explain  it  as  an  accusative  after  a  verb  of  motion.  The 
meaning  will  then  be  thrust  or  driven  into  darkness.  The  objections  to 
this  construction  are,  first,  the- necessity  of  supplying  both  a  verb  and  pre- 
position, and  secondly,  the  unusual  collocation  of  the  words,  rvrw  n'-rx  for 
nbsx  Va  rvina.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  analogy 
of  Jer.  23  :  12,  where  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  union  of  the  same 
verb  and  noun.  Another  construction  is  the  one  proposed  by  J.  D.  Micha- 
elis,  who  connects  mM  with  cpjp,  and  puts  the  latter  in  construction  not 
only  with  npis  but  also  with  nbrs — «  the  dimness  of  anguish  and  of  gloom  is 
dissipated.'     This  construction  is  recommended  by  its  freedom  from  gram- 


152  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  VIII. 


matical  anomalies,  and  by  its  rendering  the  use  of  ^3  at  the  beginning  of  the 
next  verse  altogether  natural.  The  objections  to  it  are,  that  it  violates  the 
accents  ;  that  it  makes  the  Prophet  speak  of  the  darkness  of  darkness  (but 
see  Exod.  10 :  22)  ;  and  that  the  transition  from  the  threatening  to  the  pro- 
mise is,  on  this  supposition,  too  abrupt.  Either  of  the  two  constructions 
last  proposed  may  be  preferred  without  materially  affecting  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage.  Hitzig  modifies  that  of  Michaelis  by  taking  the  last 
word  separately — it  is  dispelled  ! 

V.  23.  This  darkness  is  to  be  dispelled — for  (there  shall)  not  (be) 
darkness  (forever)  to  her  ivho  is  now  distressed  (literally,  to  whom  there  is 
distress).  The  present  calamity,  or  that  just  predicted,  is  not  to  be  perpetual. 
The  future  state  of  things  shall  exhibit  a  strange  contrast  with  the  former. 
As  the  former  time  degraded  the  land  of  Zebulon  and  the  land  of  Naphtali, 
so  the  latter  glorifies  the  way  of  the  sea,  the  hank  of  the  Jordan,  Galilee  of 
the  Gentiles.  The  same  region  is  described  in  both  clauses,  namely,  the 
northern  extremity  of  the  land  of  Israel.  This  is  designated,  first,  by  the 
saqu;  which  occupied  it,  then,  by  its  relative  position  with  respect  to  the 
Jordan  and  the  sea  of  Tiberias.  This  part  of  the  country,  from  being  the 
most  degraded  and  afflicted,  should  receive  peculiar  honour.  Its  debase- 
ment and  distress  both  arose  from  its  remote  and  frontier  situation,  proximity 
to  the  heathen,  intercourse  and  mixture  with  them,  and  constant  exposure 
to  the  first  attacks  of  enemies,  who  usually  entered  Canaan  from  the  north. 
To  the  former  of  these  reasons  may  be  traced  the  expressions  of  contempt 
for  Galilee  recorded  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  (John  1  :  46.  7  : 
52.  Matt.  26:  69.  Acts  1  :  11.  2  :  7).  How  this  disgrace  was  to  be  ex- 
changed for  honour,  is  explained  in  the  next  verse.  Besides  this,  which 
seems  to  be  the  most  satisfactory  interpretation,  there  are  several  others, 
more  or  less  at  variance  with  it.  The  English  version  supposes  a  contrast 
not  merely  between  ^£*j  and  i^an,  but  between  these  two  and  the  subse- 
quent deliverance.  This  requires  b^nto'be  taken  in  the  sense  of  lightly 
afflicting,  as  distinguished  from  ^srn  to  afflict  more  grievously.  But  this 
distinction  is  unauthorized  by  usage.  The  Vulgate  renders  bjrn  alleviata 
est.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers  make  it  mean  to  lighten  the  country  by 
removing  its  inhabitants  ;  but  then  "Psai-j  must  mean  to  bring  them  back 
again.  Koppe  makes  Judah  the  subject  of  the  promise.  As  Galilee  was 
first  afflicted,  then  delivered,  so  should  Judah  be ;  but  this  is  wholly  arbi- 
trary. Cocceius  converts  the  promise  into  a  threat  by  reading  there  ivas  not 
(or  has  never  been)  such  darkness.  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  and 
others,  give  to  ^s  the  sense  of  but,  because  what  immediately  precedes  is 
understood  by  them  not  as  a  promise  but  a  threatening.  Vitringa  and 
Junius  retain  the  proper  meaning  for,  but  connect  it  with  v.  16  or  v.  18, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX.  153 

The  necessity  of  either  supposition  is  removed  by  explaining  the  last  clause 
of  v.  22,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis  ind  Hitzig,  as  the  beginning  of  the  promise. 
The  Vulgate  connects  sptya  x'~  with  v.  22  and  translates  it  non  poterit  avo- 
lare,  as  if  from  C]i*  to  fly ;  but  it  is  obviously  a  cognate  form  to  tffrq  in  the 
preceding  verse.  Hitzig  explains  ww  a^>  as  a  compound,  meanigg  the 
negative  or  opposite  of  darkness,  i.  e.  light,  as  f9  stb  (ch.  10  :  15)  means 
that  which  is  not  wood.  Some  regard  a  as  a  temporal  particle,  at  or  in  the 
former  time.  Junius,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius  and  others  make  it  a  conjunc- 
tion, as  the  former  time  debased,  etc.  The  original  construction  seems  to  be 
tike  the  former  time  (which)  debased,  etc.  Of  those' who  regard  b^n  and 
niasn  as  descriptive  of  different  degrees  of  affliction,  some  suppose  the 
invasion  of  Tiglath-pileser  to  be  compared  with  that  of  Shalmaneser  ;  or  the 
invasion  of  Israel  with  that  of  Judah  ;  or  the  Assyrian  with  the  Babylonian 
conquest ;  or  the  Babylonian  with  the  Roman.  The  sea  mentioned  in  the 
last  clause  is  not  the  Mediterranean  but  the  sea  of  Galilee,  as  appears  from 
Matt.  14:  15,  16.  185  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  side  or  part  adjacent. 
The  region  spoken  of  was  that  along  the  Jordan  (on  one  or  both  sides) 
near  the  sea  of  Galilee.  According  to  Junius,  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles 
means  Galilaea  populosa.  Gesenius  admits  that  Isaiah  has  reference  to  the 
times  of  the  Messiah  in  this  promise  of  deliverance  and  exaltation  to  the 
Galileans. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

The  change  for  the  better,  which  was  promised  at  the  close  of  the  eighth 
chapter,  is  described  in  the  ninth  as  consisting  in  the  rise  of  a  great  light 
upon  the  darkness,  in  the  increase  of  the  nation  and  their  joy,  excited  by 
deliverance  from  bondage  and  the  universal  prevalence  of  peace,  arising 
from  the  advent  of  a  divine  successor  to  David,  who  should  restore,  estab- 
lish, and  enlarge  his  kingdom  without  any  limitation,  vs.  1-6. 

From  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  the  Prophet  suddenly  reverts  to  his 
own,  and  again  predicts  the  punishment  of  Ephraim  by  repeated  strokes. 
The  people  had  been  warned  both  by  messages  from  God  and  by  experi- 
ence, but  had  continued  to  indulge  their  proud  self-confidence,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  God  allowed  the  Assyrians,  after  overthrowing  Rezin,  to 
attack  them  also,  while  at  the  same  time  they  were  harassed  by  perpetual 
assaults  from  their  hostile  neighbours,  vs.  7—11. 


154  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

Still  they  did  not  repent  and  return  to  God,  who  therefore  cut  off  sud- 
denly many  of  all  classes,  but  especially  the  rulers  of  the  nation  and  the 
false  prophets,  the  flattering  seducers  of  the  wretched  people,  from  whom 
he  must  now  withhold  even  the  ordinary    proofs  of  his  compassion,   vs. 

All  this  was  the  natural  effect  of  sin,  like  a  fire  in  a  thicket,  which  at 
last  consumes  the  forest,  and  involves  the  land  in  smoke  .and  flame.  Yet 
amidst  these  strokes  of  the  divine  displeasure,  they  were  still  indulging  mu- 
tual animosities  and  jealousies,  insomuch  that  Israel  was  like  a  famished 
man  devouring  his  own  flesh.  Manasseh  thus  devoured  Ephraim  and 
Ephraim  Manasseh,  while  the  two  together  tried  to  devour  Judah,  vs. 
17-20.  g 

The  recurrence  of  the  same  clause  at  the  end  of  vs.  11,  16,  20,  and  the 
fourth  verse  of  the  next  chapter,  has  led  the  modern  Germans  to  regard  this 
as  a  case  of  regular  strophical  arrangement;  and  as  the  same  form  occurs 
above  in  ch.  5  :  25,  Ewald  interpolates  that  verse  between  the  sixth  and 
seventh  of  this  chapter,  as  a  part  of  the  same  context.  The  objection  to 
these  critical  hypotheses  will  be  stated  in  the  exposition. 

It  has  been  observed  already  that  the  division  of  the  chapters  is  in  this 
part  of  the  book  peculiarly  unfortunate  ;  the  first  part  of  the  ninth  (vs.  1-6) 
containing  the/conclusion  of  the  eighth,  and  the  first  part  of  the  tenth  (vs. 
1-4)  the  conclusion  of  the  ninth. 

The  numbers  of  the  verses  in  this  chapter  differ  in  the  Hebrew  and 
English  Bibles  ;  what  is  the  last  verse  of  the  eighth  in  the  former  is  the  first 
of  the  ninth  in  the  latter.  The  references  in  the  commentary  are  all  to  the 
divisions  of  the  Hebrew  text. 

V.  1.  The  people  (just  described,  i.  e.  the  people  of  Galilee),  those 
walking  in  the  dark  (expressive  both  of  spiritual  blindness  and  extreme  dis- 
tress), have  seen  a  great  light  (the  change  being  presented  to  the  Prophet's 
view  as  already  past)  :  the  dwellers  in  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death  (i.  e. 
of  intense  darkness),  light  has  beamed  upon  them.  These  words,  in  a  gene- 
ral sense,  may  be  descriptive  of  any  great  and  sudden  change  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  people,  especially  of  one  from  ignorance  and. misery  to  illumi- 
nation and  enjoyment.  They  are  still  more  appropriate  to  Christ  as  the 
light  of  the  world  (John  8  :  12),  a  light  to  the  nations  (Isai.  42  :  6.  49 :  6), 
and  the  sun  of  righteousness  (Mai.  4  :  2),  which  rose  upon  the  world  when 
he  manifested  forth  his  glory  by  his  teachings  and  his  miracles  in  Galilee 
(John  2:11).  It  was  in  this  benighted  and  degraded  region  that  he  first 
appeared  as  a  messenger  from  God  ;  and  in  that  appearance  we  are 
expressly  taught  that  this  prediction  was  fulfilled  (Matth.  4:  12-17). 
Cocceius   needlessly  supposes   these  to   be  the  words  of  a  new  speaker. 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   IX.  155 

There  is  nothing  to  intimate  a  change  of  subject,  and  this  verse  is  really  a 
mere   specification    in  positive  form  of  the   negative  prediction   in  the  first 
•  clause  of  the  verse  preceding.     By  the  people  we  are  not  to  understand  all 
Israel  (Maurer),  nor  the  Jews  as  distinguished  from  the  ten  tribes  (Kimchi, 
Calvin),  nor  the  people  of  Jerusalem  (Jarchi,  Aben  Ezra,  Grotius),  nor  th< 
people  of  God,  the  spiritual   Israel  (Cocceius),  but  the  Galileans  who  had 
just  been  mentioned  (Junius,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Vitringa,  Hendewerk).- — By 
darkness  Piscator  understands  sorrow  ;  Gesenius,  calamity  in  general ;  the 
Targum,  Israel's  sufferings  in  Egypt ;  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  and   Grotius,  those 
of  Judah  during  Sennacherib's  invasion  ;    Calvin,  those  of  the  Jews,  and 
Hendewerk  those  of  the  ten  tribes,  in   exile.     But  it  rather  expresses  the 
complex  idea  of  a  state  of  sin  and  misery  (Psalm  107  :  10,  11),  including 
outward  and  inward  darkness,  the  darkness  of  ignorance  and  the  darkness 
of  distress. — DeDieu  and  Fiirst  make  n"1^  a  simple  derivative  of  cV*  with 
a  feminine  termination,  like  roabxa  from  -jbo.       The  more  common  and  pro- 
bable opinion  is  that  it  is  a  compound  of  ^s  and  MS.     It  is  not  the  proper 
name  of  a  particular  valley  (Hitzig),  but  a  poetical  designation  of  the  most 
profound  obscurity — as   dark  as  death — deadly   darkness — with  a  special 
allusion  here  to  the  spiritual  death,  under  whose  shade  the  Galileans  sat. — 
Instead  of  have  seen,  Luther,  J.    H.  Michaelis,  Gesenius  and  others,  have 
the  present  see,  as  if  the  Prophet  while   speaking  beheld  a  sudden  flas*h. 
Light  is  not  merely  an  emblem  of  joy  (Piscator)  or  deliverance  (Gesenius), 
but  of  outward  and  inward  illumination.     Krrobel  understands  by  the  people 
the  exile  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  by  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death   Assyria 
as  the  place  of  their  captivity. 

V.  2.  The  Prophet  now,  by  a  sudden  apostrophe,  addresses  God  himself, 
who,  by  bestowing  on  the  Galileans  this  great  light,  would  not  only  honour 
them,  but  afford  occasion  of  great  joy  to  all  the  true  Israel,  including  those 
who  should  be  gathered  from  the  gentiles.      Thou  hast  enlarged  the  nation 
(i.  e.  Israel  in  general),  thou  hast  increased  its  joy  (literally,  to  it  thou  hast 
increased  the  joy) — they  rejoice  before  thee  like  the  joy  in  harvest,  as  men 
rejoice   when  they  divide   the  spoil.       Luther  and  Umbreit  explain  va  to 
mean  the  gentiles,  and  regard  this  not  as  a  description  of  deliverance  but  of 
oppression.     Hitzig  supposes   ril   to  mean  the  returning  exiles.     All  other 
writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  it  means  the  Israelites  in  general.     The  in- 
crease, of  the  nation  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  the  gathering  of 
a  great  army  by  the  king  of  Assyria,  to  whom  the  verse  is  then  addressed 
(Grotius) — or  the  crowding  of  the  Jews  into  Jerusalem  during  Sennache/ib's 
invasion  (Aben  Ezra) — or  an  increase  in  the  number  of  the  Israelites  while 
in  captivity  (Hitzig) — or  the  general  diffusion  of  the  Jewish  race  after  the 
exile  (Vitringa).     It  really  means  the  increase  of  the  people  in  their  own 


156  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

land,  not  a  mere  growth  of  population  (Gesenius),  but  an  increase  of  the 
true  Israel  by  the  calling  of  the  gentiles  (Hengstenberg,  Christol.  vol.  I.  pt. 
2,  p.  110).  Symmachus  separates  nbw  from  what  follows  (znlrftvvag  to  I 
t&vog  o  ovx  ?(i£ydXvvag),m  which  he  is  followed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and 
Maurer.  But  this  requires  a  change  in  the  punctuation  and  division  of  the 
words  to  render  it  grammatical.  DeDieu  takes  ap  as  equivalent  to  *6n — 
•'  hast  thou  not  increased  the  joy  ?'— which  is  forced  and  arbitrary.  Another 
construction  is,  thou  hast  increased  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  but  thou  hast 
not  increased  the  joy  of  their  enemies  (Jarchi)  or  of  the  gentiles  (Luther). 
But  this  assumes  two  different  subjects  in  the  two  successive  clauses.  Hit- 
zig  and  Hengstenberg  thus  construe  it — thou  dost  increase  the  nation 
whose  joy  thou  hast  not  heretofore  increased.  But  this  requires  a  relative 
to  be  supplied,  and  arbitrarily  refers  the  verbs  to  different  times.  If  the 
textual  reading  (t&)  be  retained,  as  it  is  by  Hengstenberg,  Maurer,  Hitzig, 
Henderson,  Umbreit,  and  the  older  writers,  the  best  construction  is  that 
given  by  Calvin  and  Cocceius — thou  hast  increased  the  nation,  but  thou 
hast  not  increased  the  joy  as  thou  art  now  about  to  do.  It  is  best,  how- 
ever, to  read  i?  instead  of  ah,  with  the  Masora,  several  ancient  versions, 
Gesenius,  DeWette,  and  Knobel,  or  to  regard  the  latter  as  a  mere  orthogra- 
phical variation  for  the  former  (Ewald  ad  loc.  and  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  555).  The 
same  emendation  is  required  by  the  context  in  several  other  places  (e.  g. 
ch.  49  :  5.  63  :  9).  Junius  and  Tremellius  suppose  the  former  joy  or  pros- 
perity of  Israel,  acquired  by  toil  and  bloodshed,  as  in  a  harvest  or  a  battle, 
to  be  here  contrasted  with  the  joy  which  the  Messiah  would  impart.  Kno- 
bel supplies  a  relative  before  WOO,  gives  "iUSd  the  sense  of  when,  and  sup- 
poses the  joy  of  actual  victory  to  be  compared  with  that  of  harvest — thou 
hast  increased  the  joy  wherewith  they  rejoice  before  thee,  like  the  joy  of 
harvest,  when  they  rejoice  in  their  dividing  the  spoil.  But  this  makes  the 
structure  of  the  sentence  artificial  and  complex.  Rejoicing  before  God 
Calvin  explains  to  mean  rejoicing  with  a  real  or  a  reasonable  joy  ;  Piscator, 
with  a  secret  spiritual  joy,  not  before  man  but  God ;  Cocceius,  Vitringa, 
Hitzig,  Hengstenberg,  and  Ewald,  more  correctly,  as  an  act  of  religious  wor- 
ship, either  simply  in  allusion  to  the  rejoicing  of  the  people  before  God  at 
the  tabernacle  or  temple  under  the  law  of  Moses  (Deut.  12  :  7.  14  :  26),  or 
in  reference  to  an  actual  performance  of  that  duty.  The  Targum  explains 
harvest  as  a  metaphor  for  war  or  battle,  which  destroys  the  Prophet's 
beautiful  comparison  of  the  joy  of  victory,  or  joy  in  general,  to  that 
which  accompanies  the  harvest  in  all  countries,  and  especially  in  the 
East  (Ps.  4:  8.  126:  6). — Kirnchi  makes  the  Assyrians  the  subject  of 
^,  Knobel  the  Israelites  themselves;  but  it  is  better  to  take  it  indefi- 
nitely or  to  supply  men  as  in  the  English  version,  "^5fcp3  is  not  a  false 
reading  for  insp  or  vxpfi,  which  we  find  in  a  few  manuscripts  (Lowth),  but 


ISAIAH,  dllAP.  IX.  •  157 

another  instance  of  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  construct  form  before  a  pre 
position,  as  in  the  preceding  verso  (fmSL  i»aap)i  See  Gesenius  $114.  1. 
Ewald  $  510.  T.o  the  promise  hero  given  there  is  probably  allusion  in 
the  language  of  the  angel  who  announqed  the  birth  of  Jesus  to  the 
shepherds  (Luke  2 :  10)  :  Behold,  1  brinu;  you  good  tidings  of  great 
joy,  which  shall  be  to  all  the  people  (nuvu  to»  \$up)t  i.  e.  to  the  whole 
nation,  all  the  Israel  of  God. 

V.  3.  This  verse  assigns  the  reason  or  occasion  of  the  promised  joy. 
They  shall  rejoice  before  thee,  that  (or  because)  the  yoke  of  his  burden 
(his  burdensome  yoke),  and  the  rod  of  his  shoulder  (or  back),  and  the 
staff  of  the  one  driving  him  (his  task-master,  slave-driver)  thou  hast 
broken,  like  the  day  (as  in  the  day)  of  Midian,  as  Gideon  routed  Midian, 
i.  e.  suddenly,  totally,  and  by  special  aid  from  heaven.  This  promise 
was  not  fulfilled  in  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  (Calvin), 
which  bore  no  resemblance  to  the  victory  of  Gideon  ;  nor  in  the  de- 
struction of  Sennacherib's  army  (Grotius),  the  benefits  of  which  event 
were  only  temporary  ;  nor  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus  (J. 
D.  Michael  is),  to  which  there  is  no  allusion  in  the  context ;  but  in  the 
glorious  deliverance  of  the  Galileans  (the  first  converts  to  Christianity), 
and  of  all  who  with  them  made  up  the  true  Israel,  from  the  heavy  bur- 
den of  the  covenant  of  works,  the  galling  yoke  of  the  Mosaic  law,  the 
service  of  the  devil,  and  the  bondage  of  corruption.  Outward  de- 
liverance is  only  promised,  so  far  as  it  accompanied  the  spiritual  change 
or  was  included  in  it.  Cocceius  refines  too  much  when  he  distinguishes 
between  the  rod  and  staff,  as  denoting  the  civil  and  the  ceremonial  law. 
The  meaning,  on  the  other  hand,  is  lowered  by  restricting  the  prophetic 
figures  to  Sennacherib's  siege  of  Jerusalem  (Grotius),  or  the  tribute  paid 
to  Assyria  by  Hezekiah  (Jarchi)  or  Ahaz  (Gesenius),  or  to  mere  de- 
pendence on  a  foreign  power  (Hitzig).  The  application  of  the  terms 
by  J.  D.  Michaelis  to  the  persecution  of  the  Galileans  or  first  Christians 
by  the  Jews,  seems  al  ogether  fanciful.  Barnes  refers  the  pronoun  in  his 
burden  to  the  oppressor  (which  he  made  you  bear),  and  Forerius  in  like 
manner  explains  the  rod  of  his  shoulder  to  mean  the  rod  carried  on 
the  tyrant's  shoulder.  But  the  suffix  in  both  cases  relates  not  to  the  op- 
pressor but  to  the  oppressed,  and  cru  includes  not  merely  the  shoulders 
but  the  space  between  them,  the  upper  part  of  the  back.  Forerius  also 
refers  ia  to  the  oppressor — '  thou  hast  broken  the  rod  of  the  oppressor 
with  himself.'  Munster  refers  it  to  the  rod — *  with  which  he  oppressed 
them.'  Maurer  refers  it  correctly  to  the  sufferer,  but  gives  the  preposi- 
tion the  distinct  sense  of  against  cr  upon,  because  the  tyrant  presses  or 
rushes  upon  his  victim.     It   is    no  doubt,  as  Gesenius  and  Ewald  hold, 


158  SAIAH,  fcHAP.  IX. 

a  mere  connective,  taken  here  by  tos$  as  it  is  elsewhere  by  sjg|j  (Ex.  1  : 
14.  Lev.  25  :  39).     The  day  of  any  one  in  Hebrew  often  means  the  day  in 
which  something  memorable  happens  to  him,  or  is  done  by  him  (vide  supra, 
ch.  2:  12),  and   in  Arabic  is .  absolutely  used   for  a   day  of  battle.     The 
rout  of  the  Midianites,  recorded  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Judges,  is  here 
referred  to,  not  because  it  took  place  in  a  single  night,  like  the  destruction 
of  Sennacherib's  army  (Jarchi) — nor  because  the  foes  of  Israel, 'like  those 
of  the  church,  destroyed  each  other  (Cocceius) — nor  because    the  truth, 
which  overcomes  the  world,  is  in  earthen  vessels,  like  the  lamps  of  Gideon 
( Vitringa) — nor  because  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  may  be  likened  to  the 
blowing  of  trumpets  (Dutch  Annotations) — but  because  it  was  a  wonderful 
display  of  divine  power,  without  the  use  of  any  adequate  human  means — 
and  also,  as  suggested  by  Herder  (Heb.  Poes*.  vol.  II.  p.  496),  because  it 
took  place  in  the  same   part  of  the  country  which  this  prophecy  refers  to. 
Jezreel,  where  the  battle  was  fought  (Judg.  6 :  33),  was  in  the  territory  of 
Manasseh,  to  which  tribe  Gideon  himself  belonged  (Judg.  6  :  15)  ;  but  he 
was   aided  by  the  neighbouring  tribes  of  Asher,  Zebulon,  and  Naphtali 
(Judg.  6  :  35). — Junius,  in  order  to  sustain  his  interpretation  of  the  second 
verse,  continues  the  construction  into  this,  and  gives  to  ?a  the  sense  of  when 
— c  they  rejoiced  before  thee,  etc.,  when  (or  whenever)  thou  didst  break  their 
yoke,'  etc. — i.  e.  in  every  case  of  former  deliverance.     (See  also  the  margin 
of  the  English  version.)     The  Septuagint  and  Targum  supply  a  verb  in 
the  first  clause  (acpijQTjiai,  iVhsk),  which  is  unnecessary,  as  .the  nouns  in  that 
clause  are' governed  by  the  verb  in  the  last  part  of  the  sentence.     That  verb 
does  not  mean  to  scatter  (Septuagint),  or  to  conquer  (Vulgate),  or  to  frighten 
(Cocceius),  but  to  break,  to  break  off,  or  to  break  in   pieces.     Vitringa 
takes  nvn  as  a  synonyme  of  rrafe  a  yoke  ;  but  it  no  doubt  denotes  here,  as 
in  every  other  case,  a  staff  or  rod.     Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  supposes 
an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  before  uv  ;  but,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  grammar, 
he  agrees  with  Maurer  in  supposing  the  noun  itself  to  be  used  adverbially  or 
absolutely  in  answer  to  the  question  when  ?     The  absolute  form  of  ibsiO  is 
written  by  Gesenius  bsb,  by  Ewald  Vno.     The  Daghesh  is  euphonic,  and 
the  Sheva  anomalous. 

V.  4.  The  destruction  of  the  oppressing  power  shall  be  followed  by  pro- 
found and  universal  peace.  To  express  this  idea,  the  Prophet  describes  the 
equipments  of  the  soldier  as  consumed  with  fire.  For  all  the  armour  of  the 
armed  man  (or  the  man-at-arms,  who  mingles)  in  the  tumult  (of  battle),  and 
the  garment  rolled  in  blood,  shall  be  for  burning  (and  for)  food  (or  fuel)  of 
fire.  In  other  words,  the  usual  accompaniments  of  battle  shall  be  utterly 
destroyed,  and  by  implication,  war  itself  shall  cease.  There  is  no  need  of 
supposing,  with  Vitringa,  Lowth,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Henderson,  an  allu- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX.  159 

sion  to  the  ancient  custom  of  burning  the  armour  and  equipments  of  the 
slain  upon  the  field  of  battle  as  an  act  of  triumph.  It  is  not  the  weapons  of 
ihe  enemy  alone,  but  all  weapons  of  war,  that  are  to  be  consumed  ;  not 
merely  because  they  have  been  used  for  a  bad  purpose,  but  because  they 
are  hereafter  to  be  useless.  It  is  not  so  much  a  prophecy  of  conquest  as  of 
peace;  a  peace  however  which  is  not  to  be  expected  till  the  enemies  of 
God  are  overcome  ;  and  therefore  the  prediction  may  be  said  to  include 
both  events,  the  final  overthrow  of  all  opposing  powers  and  the  subsequent 
prevalence  of  universal  peace.  This  last  is  uniformly  spoken  of  in  Scrip- 
ture as  characteristic  of  Messiah's  reign,  both  internal  and  external,  in 
society  at  large  and  in  the  hearts  of  his  people.  With  respect  to  the  latter, 
the  prediction  has  been  verified  with  more  or  less  distinctness,  in  every  case  * 
of  true  conversion.  With  respect  to  the  former,  its  fulfilment  is  inchoate, 
but  will  one  day  be  complete,  when  the  lion  and  the  lamb  shall  lie  down 
together,  and  He  who  is  the  Prince  of  Peace  shall  have  dominion  from  sea 
to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  An  allusion  to  this  pro- 
mise and  its  final  consummation  may  be  found  in  the  words  of  the  heavenly 
host  who  celebrated  the  Saviour's  birth  (Luke  2:  14),  Glory  to  God  in  the 
highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good  will  to  men.  According  to  Jarchi, 
Kimchi,  Calvin,  and  Grotius,  this  verse  contains  two  distinct  propositions, 
one  relating  to  the  day  of  Midian  or  to  wars  in  general,  and  the  other  to 
the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army  or  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from 
exile.  The  sense  would  then  be  that  while  other  battles  are  accompanied 
with  noise  and  bloodshed,  this  shall  be  with  burning  and  fuel  of  fire.  But 
this  construction,  besides  assuming  a  change  of  subject,  of  which  there 
is  no  intimation  in  the  text,  departs  from  the  natural  and  ordinary  meaning 
of  the  words.  The  fire  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  has  been  variously 
explained  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  Assyrian  slaughter  (Jarchi,  Kim- 
chi, Aben  Ezra,  Grotius),  or  of  the  angel  by  whom  it  was  effected  (Abar- 
benel) — of  the  destruction  oL  Jerusalem  (Vatablus,  J.  D.  Michaelis),  or  of 
the  world  (Diodati) — or  as  an  emblem  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Forerius),  or 
of  our  Saviour's  zeal  for  man's  salvation  (Gill).  It  is  mentioned  simply 
as  a  powerful  consuming  agent,  to  express  the  abolition  of  the  imple- 
ments of  war,  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  of  war  itself.  The  verse, 
then,  is  not  a  mere  description  of  Gideon's  victory  (Junius) — nor  a  com- 
parison between  that  or  any  other  battle  and  the  slaughter  of  Sennach- 
erib's army  (Grotius) — nor  a  prediction  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  spite 
of  an  obstinate  and  bloody  defence  (J.  D.  Michaelis) — but  a  prophecy  of 
changes  to  take  place  when  the  great  light  and  deliverer  of  the  nation 
should  appear.  The  v*.t  at  the  beginning  is  translated  when  by  Junius  and 
Tremellius  and  h»  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible  ;  but  it  really  means  for, 
and  assigns  a  second  reason  for  the  joy  predicted  in  v.  2.     )'xz>,  which  occurs 


160  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

nowhere  else,  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  war  or  battle,  by  David  Kimchi, 
Luther,  Calvin,  and  Grotius  ;  in  that  of  a  military  greave  or  sandal,  boot 
or  shoe,  by  Joseph  Kimchi,  Rosenmuller,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hengstenberg, 
Hendewerk,  Henderson,  and  Ewald  ;  and  in  that,  of  armour  or  equipment 
in  general,  by  Hitzig,  DeWette,  Uiribreit  and  Knobel.  "jsjtb  is  a  participle 
formed  from  this  noun,  and  signifies  a  person  thus  equipped.  The  whole 
phrase  therefore  means  the  armour  of  the  armed  man,  the  equipment  6f 
the  soldier.  The  obscurity  of  these  terms  to  the  old  translators  is  suffi- 
ciently apparent  from  the  aiolijv  hiavvriy(iivriv  of  the  Septuagint,  the  vio- 
lenta  praedatio  of  the  Vulgate,  and  the  unintelligible^  version  of  the  whole 
sentence  given  in  the  Targum.     Hoheisel  and  Rosenmuller  understand  by 

'  0*1  the  noise  or  clatter  of  the  military  shoe  or  sandal  armed  with  nails  ; 
but  it  rather  means  noise  in  general,  or  more  specifically,  the  shock  and 
tumult  of  battle,  the  melee.  The  phrase  ute-na  qualifies  "jxb — the  armour  of 
him  who  mingles  armed  in  the  tumult  of  battle,  and  whose  ftbato  or  upper 
garment  is  described  as  rolled  in  blood,  not  merely  dyed  of  a  red  colour. 
(Hitzig),  but  literally  stained  with  the  blood  of  conflict.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
makes  the  first  clause,  by  a  harsh  and  ungrammatical  construction,  mean 
that  he  who  arms  himself  arms  himself  only  to  tremble  or  to  make  to  trem- 
ble. There  is  no  need  of  supplying  a  verb  in  the  first  clause,  with  Calvin 
(fit)  and  Grotius  (solet  esse),  much  less  two  with  Barnes.  The  nouns  in 
this  clause  are  the  subjects  of  the  verb  at  the  beginning  of  the  second, 
which  agrees  grammatically  with  the  second, .but  logically  with  both.  The 
Vav  is  conversive,  and  at  the  same  time  introduces  the  apodosis  of  the  sen- 
tence (Gesenius  <§>  152,  I,  a).  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  adopting  J.  D. 
MichaelisV  construction  of  the  last  clause,  that  whatever  is  destined  for  the 

fire  (i»k  nba&w)  will  certainly  be  burned  (HBTOb  nrpfi). 

V.  5.  This  verse  gives  a  further  reason  for  the  joy  of  the  people,  by 
bringing  into  view  the  person  who  was  to  effect  the  great  deliverance.  For 
a  child  is  born  to  us  (or  for  us,  i.  e.  for  our  oenefit) — a  son  is  given  to  us 
(i.  e.  by  Jehovah,  an  expression  frequently  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
to  Christ's  incarnation),  and  the  government  is  upon  his  shoulder  (as  a 
burden  or  a  robe  of  office) — and  his  name  is  called  Wonderful  (literally, 
Wonder) — Counsellor — Mighty  God — Everlasting  Father — Prince  of 
Peace.  The  figure  of  a  robe  or  dress  is  preferred  by  Grotius  and 
Hengstenberg,  that  of  a  burden  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  who  cites 
analogous  expressions  from  Cicero  (rempublicam  universam  vestris  humeris 
sustinetis),  and  the  younger  Pliny  (bene  humeris  tuis  sedet  imperium). 
When  it  is  said  that  his  name  should  be  called,  it  does  not  mean  that  he 
should  actually  bear  these  names  in  real  life,  but  merely  that  he  should 
deserve  them,  and  that  they  would  be  descriptive  of  his  character.     The 


ISAIA  II.  CHA  P.   I  X  .  161 

h  x-p-  may  agree  with  hw,  or  be  construed  indefinitely — he  (i.  e.  any 
one)  shall  call  hit  name — which  is  equivalent  to  saying  they  thall  call  his 
name,  or  in  a  passive  form,  his  name  thall  be  called.  The  child  here  pre- 
dicted or  described  is  explained  to  be  Hezekiah,  by  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  Aben 
Ezra,  Grotius,  Hensler,  Paulas,  Gesenius,  Hendewerk.  This  explanation 
is  rejected,  not  only  by  the  older  writers,  but  among  the  modern  Germans 
by  Bauer,  Eichborn,  Rosenmuller, Maurer,  Hit/ig,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel. 
The  vav  conversive  render-  the  futures  "H™  and  x7"""  perfectly  equivalent,  in 
point  of  time,  to  the  preterites  ni^  and  *,n: ;  so  that  if  the  latter  refer  to  an 
event  already  past,  the  former  must  refer  to  past  time  too,  and  vice  versa. 
The  verse  then  either  represents  Hezekiah  as  unborn,  or  as  already  invested 
with  the  regal  office,  at  the  date  of  the  prediction,  neither  of  which  can  be 
historically  true.  The  attempt  to  escape  from  this  dilemma,  by  referring 
the  two  first  verbs  to  something  past,  and  the  two  next  to  something  future, 
is  a  direct  violation  of  the  laws  of  Hebrew  syntax.  Besides,  the  terms 
of  the  description  are  extravagant  and  false,  if  applied  to  Hezekiah.  In 
what  sense  was  he  wonderful,  a  mighty  God,  an  everlasting  father,  a  prince 
of  peace  1  The  modern  Jews,  in  order  to  sustain  their  antichristian  exe- 
gesis, have  devised  a  new  construction  of  the  sentence,  which  applies  all 
these  epithets,  except  the  last,  to  God  himself,  as  the  subject  of  the  verb  a--" . 
And  (he  who  is)  Wonderful,  the  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Ever- 
lasting Father,  calls  his  (i.  e.  Hezekiah's)  name  the  Prince  of  Peace. 
This  construction,  which  is  given  by  Jarchi  and  Kimchi,  is  supposed  by 
some  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  while  others  cite  the 
latter  as  a  witness  in  favour  of  applying  all  the  names  to  the  Messiah.  (See 
the  opposite  statements  in  Vitringa  and  Henderson.)  But  how  could 
even  the  last  of  these  distinctive  titles  be  applied  to  Hezekiah  ?  Neither 
actively  nor  passively  could  he  be  called,  at  least  with  any  emphasis,  a 
Prince  of  Peace.  He  waged  war  against  others,  and  was  himself  invaded 
and  subjected  to  a  foreign  power,  from  which  he  afterwards  revolted.  To 
this  it  is  replied  by  Gesenius  and  Maurer,  that  the  Prophet  may  have  enter- 
tained a  groundless  expectation.  But  even  this  bold  conjecture  is  of  no 
avail  against  a  second  objection  of  a  different  kind,  viz.  that  a  long  enume- 
ration of  titles  belonging  to  God  himself  is  utterly  irrelevant  in  speaking  of 
a  name  which  should  be  borne  by  Hezekiah.  And  this  objection  lies,  with 
still  more  force,  against  Abarbenel's  construction,  which  includes  even 
Prince  of  Peace  among  Jehovah's  titles,  and  takes  lao  x-p^  absolutely  in 
the  sense  of  giving  a  name  or  making  famous.  The  hypothesis  first  men- 
tioned is  exposed  moreover  to  the  fatal  grammatical  objection,  urged  by  Cal- 
vin and  Cocceius,  that,  according  to  invariable  usage,  tWD  must  have  stood 
between  the  names  of  God  and  the  name  of  Hezekiah.  These  construc- 
tions  are  accordingly  abandoned  now,  even  by  some  who  still  identify  the 

11 


16*2  ISAIAH,   CHAP.   IX. 

child  with  Hezekiah.  These  assume  the  ground,  maintained  of  old  by  Aben 
Ezra,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  epithets  which  might  not  be  applied  to 
Hezekiah.  In  order  to  maintain  this  ground,  the  meaning  of  the  epithets 
themselves  is  changed,  sbs  is  either  made  to  mean  nothing  more  than 
remarkable,  distinguished  (Grotius,  Gesenius,  Knobel),  or  is  ungrammati- 
cally joined  with  y9V*  in  the  sense  of  a  wonderful  counsellor  (Ewald),  or 
wonderfully  wise  (Hendewerk).  "pUtt  itself  is  joined  with  *fiaa  ^«,  as 
meaning  a  consulter  of  the  mighty  God,  a  construction  which  is  equally  at 
variance  with  the  Masoretic  interpunction  and  the  usage  of  the  word  fSVi, 
which  never  means  one  who  asks,  but  always  one  who  gives  advice,  and 
more  especially  a  public  counsellor  or  minister  of  state.  (Vide  supra,  ch. 
1  :  26.  3 :  3.)  But  some  who  admit  this  explain  the  next  title,  "nraa  fen,  to 
mean  a  mighty  hero  or  a  godlike  hero  (Gesenius,  DeWette,  Maurer), 
although  they  grant  that  in  another  part  of  this  same  prophecy  it  means  the 
Mighty  God.  (Vide  infra,  ch.  10:  21.  cf.  Deut.  10:  17.  Jer.  32:  18.) 
*iy  ^nx  is  explained  to  mean  a  father  of  spoil,  a  plunderer,  a  victor  (Abar- 
benel,  Hitzig,  Knobel) — or  a  perpetual  father  i.  e.  benefactor  of  the  people 
(Hensler,  Doederlein,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  Ewald) — or  at  most, 
the  founder  of  a  new  or  everlasting  age  (Lowth),  or  the  father  of  a  numer- 
ous offspring  (Grotius).  All  this  to  discredit  or  evade  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase,  which  either  signifies  a  father  (or  possessor)  of  eternity, 
i.  e.  an  eternal  being — or  an  author  and  bestower  of  eternal  life.  Possibly 
both  may  be  included.  The  necessity  of  such  explanations  is  sufficient  to 
condemn  the  exegetical  hypothesis  involving  it,  and  shows  that  this  hypo- 
thesis has  only  been  adopted  to  avoid  the  natural  and  striking  application  of 
the  words  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  promised  child,  emphatically  born  for  us 
and  given  to  us,  as  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  man,  as  being  wonderful  in 
his  person,  works  and  sufferings — a  counsellor,  prophet,  or  authoritative 
teacher  of  the  truth,  a  wise  administrator  of  the  church,  and  confidential 
adviser  of  the  individual  believer — a  real  man,  and  yet  the  Mighty  God — 
eternal  in  his  own  existence,  and  the  giver  of  eternal  life  to  others — the 
great  peace-maker  between  God  and  man,  between  Jew  and  gentile,  the 
umpire  between  nations,  the  abolisher  of  war,  and  the  giver  of  internal  peace 
to  all  who  being  justified  by  faith  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  (Rom.  5 :  1).  The  doctrine  that  this  prophecy  relates  to  the 
Messiah,  was  not  disputed  even  by  the  Jews,  until  the  virulence  of  antichris- 
tian  controversy  drove  them  from  the  ground  which  their  own  progenitors 
had  steadfastly  maintained.  In  this  departure  from  the  truth'  they  have 
been  followed  by  some  learned  writers  who  are  Christians  only  in  the  name, 
and  to  whom  may  be  applied,  with  little  alteration,  what  one  of  them  (Ge- 
senius) has  said  with  respect  to  the  ancient  versions  of  this  very  text,  viz. 
that  the  general  meaning  put  upon  it  may  be  viewed  as  the  criterion  of  a 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   IX.  163 

Christian  and  an  anticbristian  writer.  It  has  been  already  mentioned  that 
some  writers  even  of  this  class  have  been  compelled  to  abandon  the  appli- 
cation of  this  text  to  Hezekiah,  and  that  one  of  the  latest  and  most  emi- 
nent interpreters  by  whom  it  is  maintained,  admits  that  there  may  be  some 
allusion  to  the  nascent  doctrine  of  a  personal  Messiah.  These  concessions, 
partial  and  reluctant  as  they  are,  serve  to  strengthen  the  most  ancient  and 
most  natural  interpretation  of  this  signal  prophecy. 

V.  6.  The  reign  of  this  king  shall  be  progressive  and  perpetual, 
because  founded  in  justice  and  secured  by  the  distinguishing  favour  of  Jeho- 
vah. To  the  increase  of  the  government  (or  power)  and  to  the  peace  (or 
prosperity  of  this  reign)  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David 
and  upon  his  kingdom,  to  establish  it  and  to  confirm  it,  in  justice  and  in 
righteousness,  from  henceforth  and  forever,  the  zeal  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts 
shall  do  this.  According  to  Luther,  Cocceius,  Castalio,  Gesenius,  Maurer, 
Hitzig,  DeWette,  Ewald,  the  preposition  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  con- 
nects it  with  what  goes  before.  He  is  born,  or  called  by  these  names,  for 
the  increase  of  power  and  for  prosperity  without  end.  To  this  it  may  be 
objected,  first,  that  the  means  and  the  end  thus  stated  are  incongruous,  and 
then  that  "px,  according  to  usage,  is  not  a  mere  particle  of  negation,  but  in- 
cludes the  substantive  verb.  Rosenmiiller,  Hengstenberg,  Umbreit  and  Knobel 
retain  the  old  and  common  construction,  which  supposes  a  new  sentence  to 
begin  here  and  connects  the  preposition  with  what  follows.  The  government, 
or  power  thus  to  be  enlarged  is  of  course  that  of  the  child,  who  is  described 
as  born  and  given  in  the  foregoing  verse.  A  striking  parallel  is  furnished 
by  the  prophecy  in  Micah  5 :  3.  There,  as  here,  a  king  is  promised  who 
should  be  the  son  of  David,  and  should  reign  over  all  the  earth  in  peace  and 
righteousness  forever.  It  is  there  expressed,  and  here  implied,  that  this 
king  should  re-unite  the  divided  house  of  Israel,  although  this  is  but  a  small 
part  of  the  increase  promised,  which  includes  the  calling  of  the  gentiles 
also.  Peace,  though  included  in  nib©,  is  not  a  full  equivalent.  The  He- 
brew word  denotes  not  only  peace  as  opposed  to  war,  intestine  strife,  or 
turbulence,  but  welfare  and  prosperity  in  general  as  opposed  to  want  and 
sorrow.  The  reign  here  predicted  was  to  be  not  only  peaceful  but  in  every 
respect  prosperous.  And  this  prosperity,  like  the  reign  of  which  it  is  pre- 
dicted, is  to  have  no  limit  either  temporal  or  local.  It  is  to  be  both  univer- 
sal and  eternal.  There  is  nothing  to  preclude  the  very  widest  explanation 
of  the  terms  employed.  Ewald  explains  bs  as  meaning  for  the  sake  of,  on 
account  of;  but  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  sense  of  on  which  is 
its  proper  one,  and  that  which  it  always  has  in  other  cases  when  prefixed 
to  the  noun  aton.  A  verb  is  introduced  before  K&a  bs  by  the  Vulgate  (se- 
debit)   and  Gesenius  (komme),  but  without   necessity.     The  construction 


164  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  IX 


is  what  the  grammarians  call  a  pregnant  one.  The  endless  increase  of 
power  and  prosperity  on  the  throne  of  David  means  of  course  that  the  Prince, 
whose  reign  was  to  be  thus  powerful  and  prosperous,  would  be  a  descendant 
of  David.  This  is  indeed  a  repetition  and  explanation  of  a  promise  given 
to  David  (2  Sam.  7:  11-16.  1  Kings  8  :  25)  and  repeatedly  referred  to  by 
him  (2  Sam.  23 :  1-5.  Ps.  2,  45,  72,  89, 132).  .  Hence  the  Messiah  is  not 
only  called  the  Branch  or  Son  of  David  (2  Sara.  7.:  12,  J 3.  Jer.  23 :  5. 
33  :  15),  but  David  himself  (Jer.  30  :  9.  Ezek.  34  :  23,  24.  37  :  24.  Hos. 
3  :  5).  The  two  reigns  are  identified,  not  merely  on  account  of  an  external 
resemblance  or  a  typical  relation,  but  because  the  one  was  really  a  restora- 
tion or  continuation  of  the  other.  Both  kings  were  heads  of  the  same  body, 
the  one  a  temporal  head,  the  other  spiritual,  the  one  temporary,  the  other 
eternal.  The  Jewish  nation,  as  a  spiritual  body,  is  really  continued  in  the 
Christian  church.  The  subject  of  the  prophecy  is  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  ; 
the  effect  predicted,  its  stability  and  increase ;  the  means  to  be  employed, 
judgment  and  justice  ;  the  efficient  cause,  the  zeal  of  Jehovah.  Grotius  dis- 
tinguishes between  judgment  and  justice,  as  denoting  righteous  government 
on  one  hand,  and  righteous  subjection  to  it  on  the  other.  The  justice 
spoken  of  is  that  of  the  Messiah  and  his  subjects.  All  the  acts  of  his  ad- 
ministration will  be  righteous,  and  the  effect  of  this  upon  his  people  will  be 
righteousness  on  their  part,  and  this  prevalence  of  righteousness  will  natu- 
rally generate  the  increase  and  stability  here  promised.  The  preposition  s 
does  not  merely  mean  with  justice,  as  an  accompanying  circumstance,  but 
by  it,  as  a  necessary  means.  The  phrase  firoa  cannot  mean  from  that 
time,  as  explained  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  (ab  isto  tempore),  but  must 
have  its  ordinary  sense,  from  this  time.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the 
Prophet,  as  in  many  other  cases,  takes  his  stand  upon  a  point  of  future 
time,  and  speaks  of  it  as  actually  present.  Having  spoken  of  the  promised 
child  in  v.  5  as  already  born  and  given,  he  may  now  look  forward  from 
its  birth  into  the  future,  and  in  this  sense  use  the  phrase  from  henceforth. 
Cocceius  understands  the  words  more  strictly  as  meaning  '  from  the  date  of 
the  prediction,'  and  referring  to  the  whole  series  of  events,  from  that  time 
onwards,  which  are  mentioned  in  this  prophecy — the  deliverance  of  Judah — 
the  destruction  of  Ephraim  and  the  overthrow  of  Syria — the  deportation  of 
the  ten  tribes — Sennacherib's  invasion — Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest — the 
Babylonish  exile — the  return — the  subsequent  vicissitudes — the  rising  of 
the  great  light  upon  Galilee — the  increase  of  the  church  by  the  accession 
of  the  gentiles — -the  breaking  of  the  yoke  and  staff  of  spiritual  bondage — 
the  destruction  of  the  implements  of  war — the  establishment  and  gradual 
enlargement  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  These  form  a  chain  of  great 
events  succeeding  one  another  without  any  interruption  from  the  date  of 
the  prediction  to  the  end  of  time.  Whatever  be  the  terminus  a  quo  intended 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX.  165 

l>y  the  Prophet,  it  is  clear  that  he  describes  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  as  an 
endless  one.  The  word  cb^r,  though  properly  denoting  mere  indefinite 
duration,  and  therefore  frequently  applied  to  terms  and  periods  of  time, 
such  as  the  length  of  human  life,  is  always  to  be  taken  in  its  largest 
meaning,  unless  limited  by  something  in  the  context  or  the  nature  of  the 
case  ;  much  more  in  such  an  instance  as  the  one  before  us,  where  the  con- 
text really  precludes  all  limitation  by  the  strength  of  its  expressions.  To 
explain  forever  here,  with  Jarchi  and  Grotius,  as  meaning  till  the  end  of 
Hezekiah's  life,  is  simply  ludicrous,  unless  the  other  phrases,  both  in  this 
verse  and  the  fifth,  are  mere  extravagant  hyperboles.  The  Masoretic 
interpunction  requires  this  phrase  to  be  connected  with  what  follows — '  from 
henceforth  and  forever  the  zeal  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts  will  do  this.'  It  is  so 
read  by  Junius,  Cocceius,  and  Gill ;  but  most  interpreters  suppose  it  to  qualify 
what  goes  before,  and  take  the  remaining  words  as  a  short  independent 
proposition.  The  difference  is  little  more  than  one  of  punctuation.  Both 
constructions  make  the  reign  of  the  Messiah  an  eternal  one.  The  word 
newp  expresses  the  complex  idea  of  strong  affection  comprehending  or 
attended  by  a  jealous  preference  of  one  above  another.  It  is  used  in  the 
Old  Testament  to  signify  not  only  God's  intense  love  for  his  people  but  his 
jealousy  in  their  behalf,  that  is  to  say,  his  disposition  to  protect  and  favour 
them  at  the  expense  of  others.  Sometimes,  moreover,  it  includes  the  idea 
of  a  jealous  care  of  his  own  honour,  or  a  readiness  to  take  offence  at  any 
thing  opposed  to  it,  and  a  determination  to  avenge  it  when  insulted. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  idea  of  the  divine  jealousy  incongruous  or  unworthy 
as  Umbreit  supposes.  The  expressions  are  derived  from  the  dialect  of 
human  passion,  but  describe  something  absolutely  right  on  God's  part  for 
the  very  reasons  which  demonstrate  its  absurdity  and  wickedness  on 
man's.  These  two  ideas  of  God's  jealous  partiality  for  his  own  people,  and 
his  jealous  sensibility  respecting  his  own  honour,  are  promiscuously  blended 
in  the  usage  of  the  word,  and  are  perhaps  both  included  in  the  case  before 
us.  Both  for  his  own  sake  and  his  people's,  he  would  bring  these  events  to 
pass.  Or  rather  the  two  motives  are  identical,  that  is  to  say,  the  one  in- 
cludes the  other.  The  welfare  of  the  church  is  only  to  be  sought  so  far  as 
it  promotes  God's  glory,  and  a  zeal  which  makes  the  glory  of  the  church  an 
object  to  be  aimed  at  for  its  own  sake,  cannot  be  a  zeal  for  God,  or  is  at 
best  a  zeal  for  God  but  not  according  to  knowledge.  The  mention  of 
God's  jealousy  or  zeal  as  the  procuring  cause  of  this  result  affords  a  sure 
foundation  for  the  hopes  of  all  believers.  His  zeal  is  not  a  passion  but  a 
principle  of  powerful  and  certain  operation.  The  astonishing  effects  pro- 
duced by  feeble  means  in  the  promotion,  preservation,  and  extension  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  can  only  be  explained  upon  the  principle  that  the  zeal 
of  the  Lord  of  Hosts  effected  it.     The  reign  here  described  cannot  be  that 


166  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

of  Hezekiah,  which  was  confined  to  Judah,  and  was  neither  peaceful  nor 
progressive  nor  perpetual.  It  cannot  be  the  joint  reign  of  himself  and  his 
successors  ;  for  the  line  was  broken  at  the  Babylonish  exile.  It  cannot  be 
the  reign  of  the  Maccabees  or  Hasmonean  princes,  for  these  were  not  the 
sons  of  David  but  of  Levi.  The  prediction,  if  fulfilled  at  all,  could  only 
be  fulfilled  in  a  reign  which  after  it  began  was  never  interrupted,  and  has 
ever  since  been  growing  in  extent  and  power.  Is  not  this  the  reign  of 
Christ  ?  Does  it  not  answer  all  the  requisite  conditions  ?  The  evangelists 
take  pains  to  prove  by  formal  genealogies  his  lineal  descent  from  David,  and 
his  reign,  unlike  all  others,  still  continues  and  is  constantly  enlarging. 
Hendewerk  and  other  modern  German  writers  have  objected  that  this  pro- 
phecy is  not  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament.  But  we  have  seen 
already,  that  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter  and  the  one  before  it  are  inter- 
preted by  Matthew  as  a  prophecy  of  Christ's  appearing  as  a  public  teacher 
first  in  Galilee  ;  and  no  one  has  denied  that  this  is  part  of  the  same  context. 
Nor  is  this  all.  The  expressions  of  the  verse  before  us  were  applied  to 
Christ,  before  his  birth,  by  Gabriel,  when  he  said  to  Mary  (Luke  I  :  32-34), 
He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Highest,  and  the 
Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David,  and  he  shall 
reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  forever,  and  of  his  Jcwgdom  there  shall  be  no 
end.  The  historical  allusions  in  these  words  show  clearly  that  the  person 
spoken  of  was  one  expected,  or  in  other  words  a  subject  of  prophecy,  and 
though  the  terms  are  not  precisely  those  used  by  Isaiah,  they  agree  with 
them  more  closely  than  with  any  other  passage.  Indeed  the  variations  may 
be  perfectly  accounted  for,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  angel's  message 
was  intended  to  describe  the  birth  of  Christ  as  a  fulfilment,  not  of  this  pre- 
diction only,  but  of  several  others  also  which  are  parallel  with  this,  and  that 
the  language  was  so  framed  as  to  suggest  them  all,  but  none  of  them  so 
prominently  as  the  one  before  us  and  the  earlier  promise  upon  which  it  was 
founded.  (Compare  2  Sam.  7:11,12.  Dan.  7 :  14,  27.  Micah  4  :  7,  etc.) 
The  objection  that  Christ's  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,  and  that  the  men- 
tion of  the  throne  of  David  shows  that  a  temporal  monarchy  was  meant, 
proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  figurative  lan- 
guage, or  at  least  that  it  is  never  used  in  prophecy.  The  objection  of 
the  Jews,  that  wars  have  not  ceased  since  Christ  came,  lies  with  still 
greater  force  against  their  application  of  the  text  to  Hezekiah.  It  is  founded 
moreover  on  a  misconception  of  the  promise,  which  was  not  made  to  the 
world  but  to  the  church,  and  not  even  to  that,  as  something  to  be  realized 
at  once,  but  by  a  gradual  process  of  pacification.  The  reference  to  Christ 
is  not  a  mere  typical  and  secondary  one,  but  primary  and  positive.  Some 
who  refer  this  whole  prediction,  in  its  proper  sense,  to  Hezekiah,  at  the 
same  time  grant  that  it  has  a  higher  reference  to  Christ.     Why  then  assume 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX  101 

a  lower  sense  without  necessity  or  warrant  ?  The  violence  thus  done  to  tin- 
expressions  of  the  text  w  ill  be  sufficiently  evinced  by  stating  that  according 
to  this  view  of  tin*  matter,  as  exhibited  by  Grotius,  the  increase  here  pro- 
mised means  continuance  for  nine  and  twenty  years  (mulliplicabitur  ejus 
impcrium,  id  est,  durabit  per  annosXXIX) — from  henceforth  and  forever  is 
from  Hezekiah's  birth  until  his  death  («  modo  et  usque  in  sempiternum,  ab 
initio  ad  finem  vitae) — and  when  the  Prophet  says  the  zeal  of  God  shall  do 
this,  what  be  means  is  that  his  zeal  will  lead  him  to  bestow  upon  his  people 
such  a  prince  as  Hezekiah  (zelus  Domini  exercituum  faciet  hoc,  id  est,  ar- 
dens  amor  Dei  erga  pios,  qui  insunt  populo,  dabit  nobis  ac  servabit  tarn 
bonum  principem).  This  forced  attenuation  of  the  Prophet's  meaning 
might  be  natural  enough  in  the  rabbinical  expositors,  whose  only  aim  was  to 
avoid  the  application  of  the  prophecy  to  Christ  ;  but  it  was  utterly  unworthy 
of  a  man  like  Grotius,  who  had  nothing  to  gain  by  it,  and  who  after  all 
admits  the  very  thing  which  he  appears  to  be  denying,  but  admits  it  in  the 
questionable  shape  of  a  twofold  fulfilment  and  a  double  sense,  by  which  pro- 
ceeding he  gratuitously  multiplies  the  very  difficulties  which  interpretation 
is  intended  to  remove.  Upon  the  whole,  it  may  be  said  with  truth  that 
there  is  no  alleged  prophecy  of  Christ,  for  which  it  seems  so  difficult  with 
any  plausibility  to  find  another  subject ;  and  until  that  is  done  which  all  the 
Rabbins  and  a  Grotius  could  not  do,  we  may  repose  upon  the  old  evangeli- 
cal interpretation  as  undoubtedly  the  true  one. — In  nearly  all  editions  and 
manuscripts,  the  first  letter  of  the  word  n:na  presents  the  final  form  Q,  an 
orthographical  anomaly  mentioned  in  the  Talmud,  and  perhaps  very  ancient, 
but  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  relic  of  Isaiah's  autograph,  and  therefore  involv- 
ing some  mysterious  meaning.  By  different  Jewish  writers  it  has  been 
explained  as  an  allusion  to  the  recession  of  the  shadow  on  the  dial — to  the 
enclosing  of  Jerusalem  with  walls  agAi  after  the  captivity — to  the  cap- 
tivity itself,  as  an  enclosure — to  the  stability  of  Messiah's  kingdom,  as  the 
open  B  is  said  to  have  the  opposite  meaning  in  Neh.  2:13.  Some  Chris- 
tian writers  have  followed  this  rabbinical  example  by  suggesting  what  may 
possibly  have  been  intended  by  the  unusual  orthography,  supposing  it  to  be 
both  ancient  and  intentional — e.  g.  the  exclusion  of  the  unbelieving  Jews 
from  the  kingdom  of  Christ — the  secret  inward  progress  of  that  kingdom 
among  men — the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary — the  concealment  of  the  time 
when  the  prediction  should  be  verified — the  spread  of  the  gospel  to  the  four 
corners  of  the  world — the  birth  of  Christ  six  hundred  years  (of  which  c  is 
the  cipher)  after  the  prediction — the  opening  to  the  gentiles  of  the  church 
which  had  been  previously  shut  up  and  restricted  to  the  Jews — the  perfec- 
tion of  Christ's  kingdom,  as  denoted  by  the  perfect  or  square  form — and  its 
mystical  nature,  as  denoted  by  the  unusual  form  of  the  letter.  It  is  sug- 
gested by  Cocceius,  that   the  unusual   mode  of  writing   may  have  been  in- 


168  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

tended  to  attract  attention  to  this  signal  prophecy.  But  why  should  it  have 
been  resorted  to  in  this  one  passage,  and  in  this  particular  part  of  it  ? 
Hengstenberg,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Henderson  regard  it  as  an  acciden- 
tal anomaly,  occasioned  by  mistake  and  preserved  by  superstition ;  the  only 
objection  to  which  is  the  extreme  care  of  the  Jews  as  to  all  points  of  orthog- 
raphy, and  the  improbability  of  such  an  error,  if  it  could  occur,  becoming 
general.  Some  have  accordingly  supposed  the  singularity  to  be  connected, 
in  its  origin,  with  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Eliller  (de  Arcano 
Chethib  et  Keri)  conjectures  that  the  final  mem  was  meant  to  show  that  the 
first  two  letters  of  h:ns%  according  to  some  ancient  reading,  ought  to  be 
omitted,  and  the  word  read  simply  hai.  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and  Knobel 
adopt  the  supposition  of  Elias  Levita,  that  it  indicates  a  different  division  of 
the  words,  which  is  also  noticed  in  the  Masora,  viz.  ttroari  h2i  dV — to  them 
the  dominion  shall  he  great  or  multiplied.  There  is,  however,  no  example 
of  the  abbreviation  cb  for  D*$,  corresponding  to  the  common  one  of  C2  for  crra. 

V.  7.  Having  repeatedly  interchanged"  the  three  great  subjects  of  this 
prophecy — the  deliverance  of  Judah  from  the   power  of  Syria   and  Israel 
— its  subsequent  punishment  by  means  of  the  Assyrians — and  the  reign  of 
the  Messiah,  for  whose  sake  the  kingdom  was  to  be  preserved — the  Prophet 
passes  here  abruptly  from  the  last  to   the  first,  and  again  predicts  the  pun- 
ishment of  Ephraim.     He  reverts  to  this   event,  which  had  already  been 
repeatedly  foretold,  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  that  the  blows  would  be 
repeated  as  often  and  as  long  as  might  be  needed  for  the  absolute  fulfilment 
of  God's  threatenings.     He  begins  by  showing  that  Israel  had  already  been 
sufficiently  forewarned.      The  Lord  sent  a  word  "into  Jacob,  and,  it  came 
doivn  into  Israel.     Calvin  supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  clauses,  and 
explains  the  verse  to  mean  that  wha|  had  been  predicted  as  to  Israel  should 
be  fulfilled  in   Israel  ;  but  there  is  no  such  usage  of  bss.     Grotius  adopts 
the  same  construction,  with  the   additional  error  of  applying  Jacob  to  the 
whole   race,  and  Israel   to  the   ten  tribes,  which    is    altogether  arbitrary. 
Equally  groundless  is  the  supposition  that  Jacob  and  Israel  denote  the  rival 
kingdoms.     The  two  names  of  the  patriarch  are  here  used  as  equivalents, 
denoting  his  descendants,  and  especially  the  larger  part,  the  kingdom  of  the 
ten  tribes,  to  which  the  national  name  Israelis  wont  to  be  distinctively  applied. 
Another  false  antithesis  is  that  between  the  verbs,  referring  one  to  past  time 
and  the  other  to  the  future.     This  is  adopted  even  by  Ewald  ;  but  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  of  the  language,  Van  is   conversive  of  the  preterite  only 
when  preceded  by  a  future,  expressed  or  implied.   (See  Nordheimer  <§>  21 9.  1.) 
The  LXX  seem  to  have  read  "G*Ja  pestilence  instead  of"0^  a  word.  Castalio 
gives  it  here  the  sense  of  thing  (rem  mittet),  Vitringa  that  of  threatening, 
which   is  not   expressed  by  this  word,  but  suggested  by  the  context.     The 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   I  I  169 

true  sense  is  that  oft  dictum  Of  authoritative  declaration,  not  that  which  fol- 
lows, nor  that  which  goes  before,  but  the  whole  series  of  threatenings  and 
warnings  which  God  had  pent  by  (ill  the  prophets  and  by  all  the  seers 
(2  Kings  17  :  18),  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  that  respecting  Pekah 
in  the  seventh  chapter.  The  sending  of  the  word  here  mentioned  had 
cither  actually  taken  place,  or  was  regarded  by  the  Prophet  in  his  vision  as 
already  past.  The  preposition  does  not  mean  against,  or  simply  to,  but 
into,  as  usual  after  verbs  of  motion.  The  Septuagint  renders  bta  came,  the 
Targum  was  heard.  In  Josh.  21  :  45  and  1  Kings  8  :  56,  this  same  verb  is 
used  with  ■qjj  wo?'d  in  the  sense  of  failing,  or  not  coming  to  pass.  Adopting 
this  sense  here,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  would  be,  that  God  had  sent  a  word 
of  warning,  but  that  it  had  not  yet  been  fulfilled.  But  in  both  the  places 
cited,  the  idea  expressed  is  not  that  of  mere  delay,  but  of  entire  failure,  im- 
plying the  falsity  of  the  prediction.  To  give  it  the  contrary  sense  of  coming 
to  pass  or  taking  effect,  as  Jarchi  and  Calvin  do,  is  altogether  arbitrary. 
The  great  majority  of  writers  take  it  in  its  usual  and  proper  sense  of  falling 
or  descending.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  supposing  an  allusion  to  the 
falling  of  an  arrow,  or  of  seed  into  the  earth,  or  of  rain  upon  it.  A  more 
obvious  and  natural  association  would  be  that  of  a  thunderbolt,  suggested  by 
Gill  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  reference  to  the  threatening  nature  of  the  reve- 
lation ;  especially  as  2  b23  is  elsewhere  used  in  the  sense  of  falling  upon, 
i.  e.  attacking  (Josh.  11  :  7).  The  essential  import  of  the  phrase  is  to 
describe  the  word  as  coming  down  from  God  in  heaven  (compare  Dan.  4  : 
28),  or,  as  Hendewerk  supposes,  from  Jerusalem,  his  earthly  residence,  mo- 
tion from  which  is  always  spoken  of  as  downward  in  the  Hebrew  idiom. 
The  word  which  God  had  uttered  against  Israel  had  reached  them  as  a  mes- 
sage from  him,  as  a  revelation,  so  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  as  to  its 
authority  and  genuineness.  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  render  the  verbs  in  the 
present  tense,  and  regard  this  verse  as  a  title  or  inscription  of  the  following 
prophecy,  because  it  makes  the  strophe  and  antistrophe  unequal.  But  if 
this  proves  any  thing,  it  is  that  the  strophical  arrangement  is  itself  a  fanciful 
misapplication  of  the  principles  of  Greek  and  Latin  prosody  to  the  measured 
prose  of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  The  solemn  repetition  of  the  last  clause  of 
v.  8  would  be  just  as  natural  in  an  oration  as  in  an  ode  or  a  dramatic 
chorus.  The  injurious  effects  of  this  exaggerated  theory  of  Hebrew  versifi- 
cation ori  the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  the  sacred  text  have  been  al- 
ready stated  in  the  general  introduction. 

V.  8.  The  word  which  God  had  sent  had  reached  the  people  ;  they  had 
heard  and  understood  it,  but  continued  to  indulge  their  pride  and  self- 
security.  And  they  know  (the  divine  threatening),  the  people,  all  of  them 
(literally  all  of  it,  the  noun  being  singular  but  used  collectively),  Ephraim 


HO  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  IX. 

and  the  inhabitant  of  Samaria  (a  limitation  of  the  general  terms  preceding, 
so  as  to  prevent  their  application   to  Judah),  in  pride  and  in  greatness  of 
heart  (an  equivalent  expression),  saying  (the  words   recorded  in  the  next 
verse).     The  apparent  inversion  in  the  last  clause  is  well   explained   by 
Hendewerk,  as  arising  from  the   fact  that  TOKb  always  stands  immediately 
before  the  words  spoken.     Most  writers   understand  the  verbs  as   futures  ; 
but  this  is  a  question  of  no  moment,  as  the  past  time  which  the  Prophet  has 
in  view  upon  the  other  supposition,  was  actually  future  at  the  date  of  the 
prediction.     Lowth   arbitrarily  translates  the  vav  at  the  beginning  of  this 
verse  because,  and  that  at  the  beginning  of  v.  10  therefore,  making  one  long 
sentence.     Luther,  Hendewerk,  and  Ewald  render  it  by  that,  and  make  the 
construction  a  subjunctive  one — '  that  they  may  know  or  feel  it ' — which  is 
at  least  unnecessary.     Umbreit  not  only  gives  the   same  construction,  but 
takes  is*!*1  in  the  absolute  sense  of  having  or  obtaining  knowledge  (dass  zu 
Erkentniss  komme),  which  is  less  consistent  both  with  usage  and  the  con- 
text than  the  common  opinion  that  the  "ai  of  v.  7  is  the  object  of  the  verb. 
Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  many  others,  understand   the  clause  to  mean  that 
they  should  know  the  truth  of  these  predictions  by  experience.     It  rather 
means  that  they  had  known  and  understood  God's  warning  message.     By 
the  people  we  are   not  to  understand  the  whole  race  (Junius),  but  the  ten 
tribes,  or  perhaps  the  whole  race  and  especially  the  ten  tribes  (J.  H.  Mi- 
chaelis).     The  suffix  in  ifc&,  is  referred  by  Gill  to  ^n*i — the  people  shall 
know  all  of  it,  i.  e.  all  the  word — "  they  shall  find  that  the  whole  of  it  will 
be  accomplished,  every  punctilio  in  it."     Gesenius,  Hendewerk,  and  Um- 
breit render.it  his  (sein  ganzes  Volk),  as  if  referring  to  the  names  in  v.  7. 
Its   real   antecedent  is  fisn,  as  the  construction  is  the  common  Hebrew  one 
in  all  such  cases — the  people  all  of  it,  i.  e.  all  the  people.     The  Septuagint 
makes  people  govern   Ephraim  (nag  6  labg  rov  'Eyguip)  ',  but  in   Hebrew 
this  construction  is  forbidden  by  the  article.     The  inhabitant  of  Samaria  is 
distinctly  mentioned,   as   the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem   are  in  ch.  8  :  14. 
Schultens  (in  his  Animadv.  Philol.  ad  Jer.  50  :  11)  gives  to  a  the  sense  of 
for,  because  of,  and  connects  it  with  what  goes  before.     It  really  means  in 
or  with,  and  connects  the  noun  with  what  follows.     ^\  is  inaccurately  ren- 
dered  as  an  adjective,  agreeing  with  ao£>,  by  the  Septuagint  (vxprjly  xagdia) 
and  Hendewerk  (stolzem  Herzen).     Greatness  of  heart  in  Hebrew  does  not 
mean   magnanimity,   but   pride   and  arrogance.  (Vide  infra,  ch.  10:  12). 
The  feeling  here  described  is  not  "  a  desire  of  splendour,  power,  and  magnifi- 
cence, a  purpose  to  be  distinguished"  (Barnes),  but  a  misplaced  confidence 
in  the  stability  of  their  condition,     •nsxb,  although   an  infinitive  in   form,  is 
not  incorrectly  rendered  as  a  gerund  (dicendo)  by  Pagninus,  Montanus,  and 
Cocceius.     A  relative  construction  is   preferred  by  Luther  (die  da  sagen), 
Calvin  (qui  dicunt),  J.  H.  Michaelis  (dum  dicunt),  and  many  others.     The 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   IX.  171 

participial  form  of  the  English  Version  is  given  also  by  the  Septuagint,  Vul- 
gate, and  Dutch  Versions,  by  Vitringa,  and  by  Lowth.  There  is  no  neces- 
sity or  ground  for  the  interrogative  construction  given  by  DeDieu  (an  in  super- 
bia  dlcendum  (bit  ?).  Forerius  strangely  understands  the  Prophet  as  sarcas- 
tically saying  that  the  people  shall  be  taught  to  say,  in  their  pride  and  arro- 
gance, what  follows.  Hitzig,  without  the  irony — the  people  shall  be  made 
conscious  of  their  own  pride  and  arrogance  in  saying,  etc.  But  this  con- 
struction seems  to  overlook  the  preposition,  ^ESt  is  not  to  be  taken  in  the 
sense  of  purposing  or  thinking,  which  it  sometimes  obtains  from  an  ellipsis 
of  i-b  bst  in  his  heart,  or  to  himself  (Gen.  27  :  41),  but  in  its  proper  sense 
of  speaking,  as  the  usual  expression  of  intention  and  desire.  The  conjec- 
tural emendation  of  the  text  by  changing  vpt*  to  19"P  (Houbigant),  1'tfP 
(Seeker),  or  WOJP  (Lowth),  is  perfectly  gratuitous. 

V.  9.  The  very  words  of  the  self-confident  Ephraimites  are  now  recorded. 
Instead  of  being  warned  and  instructed  by  what  they  had  already  suffered, 
they  presumptuously  look  for  greater  prosperity  than  ever.  Brides  ore 
fallen,  and  hewn  stone  will  we  build ;  sycamores  are  felled,  and  cedars  will 
we  substitute.  The  oriental  bricks  are  unburnt,  so  that  most  of  their  brick 
structures  are  as  little  durable  as  mud  walls.  The  sycamore  is  durable, 
but  too  light  and  spongy  to  be  used  in  solid  building.  The  latter  is  accord- 
ingly contrasted  with  the  cedar,  and  the  former  with  hewn  stone,  the  two 
most  highly  valued  building  materials.  By  some  interpreters  these  words  are 
literally  understood.  According  to  J.  H.  Michaelis,  they  refer  to  the  cities  of 
the  ten  tribes  which  the  Syrians  destroyed  ;  according  to  Gill,  to  the  houses 
outside  of  the  cities  and  peculiarly  exposed  to  the  invaders.  So  Knobel  un- 
derstands the  sense  to  be,  that  instead  of  the  mean  houses  which  the.  As- 
syrians had  destroyed,  the  people  of  the  ten  tribes  were  determined  to  build 
better.  Hitzig  and  DeWette  suppose  that  sycamores  and  cedars  are  here 
mentioned,  not  as  timber,  but  as  living  trees,  and  give  cpbrw  the  specific 
sense  of  planting  anew.  Thus  Calvin  understands  the  people  to  be  here 
represented  as  regarding  the  devastations  of  the  enemy  only  as  occasions 
for  increasing  the  beauty  of  their  houses  and  plantations.  But  as  this  im- 
plies a  protracted  process,  we  must  either  suppose  it  to  be  put  into  the  mouth 
of  the  presumptuous  Israelites  as  a  foolish  boast,  or  understand  it  figuratively. 
So  indeed  the  whole  verse  is  explained  by  many,  of  whom  some  regard  the 
brick,  stone,  and  trees  as  figures  for  great  men  in  general  (Targum),  or  for 
the  kings  of  Israel  in  particular  (Jarchi),  or  for  the  State  considered  as  a 
building  or  a  tree  (Hendewerk),  while  others  more  correctly  understand  both 
clauses  as  a  metaphorical  description  of  a  change  from  worse  to  better,  by  a 
substitution  of  the  precious  for  the  vile  without  specific  reference  to  the  lit- 
eral rebuilding  of  towns  or  houses.     Bricks  and  sycamores  are  then  mere 


172  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

proverbial  expressions  for  that  which  is  inferior,  and  cedars  and  hewn  stone 
for  that  which  is  superior.  An  illustrative  parallel  is  found  inch.  60  :  17, 
where  the  same  general  idea  is  expressed  by  the  exchange  of  stones  for  iron, 
iron  for  silver,  wood  for  brass,  brass  for  gold,  of  course  without  allusion  to  a  literal 
exchange  or  mutual  substitution.  Jerome  refers  this  verse  to  the  low  condi- 
tion of  Judah  under  Ahaz,  and  the  boastful  determination  of  the  ten  tribes  to 
subdue  and  then  restore  it  to  its  former  splendour ;  but  it  really  relates  to 
what  the  ten  tribes  had  themselves  endured,  and  expresses  their  belief  that 
these  reverses  would  be  followed  by  a  better  state  of  things  than  they  had 
ever  known.  Cocceius  understands  the  sense  to  be  that  the  prosperity  en- 
joyed already  would  be  followed  by  still  greater  ;  but  even  an  inferior  de- 
gree of  prosperity  would  hardly  have  been  represented  by  the  metaphor  of 
fallen  bricks  and  prostrate  trees. 

V.  10.  Here  begins  a  second  stage  in  the  progress  of  God's  judgments. 
He  had  sent  a  warning  prophecy  before  (v.  7),  and  they  had  been  taught 
its  meaning  by  experience  (v.  8),  but  without  effect  upon  their  proud  self- 
confidence.     And  (now)  Jehovah  raises  up  above  him  (i.  e.  Ephraim)   the 
(victorious)  enemies  of  Rezin  (his  late  ally)  and  (besides  these)   he  will  in- 
stigate his  own  (accustomed)  enemies  (to  wit,  those  mentioned  in  the  next 
verse).     The  suffix  in  T^s  refers,  not  to  Rezin,  but  to  Jacob,  Israel,  Eph- 
raim, the  inhabitant  of  Samaria,  mentioned  in  vs.  8,  9.     They  who  were  to 
conquer  Israel  are  called  the  enemies  of  Rezin,  to  remind  the  Israelites  of 
their  alliance  with  him,  and  to  intimate  that  they  who  had  so  lately  con- 
quered Syria  were  soon  to  conquer  Israel.     There  is  no  need  therefore  of 
the  emendation  'VWD  princes,  which  is  found  in  many  manuscripts  and  ap- 
proved by  Houbigant  and  Ewald,  but  which  seems  to  be  a  mere  attempt  to 
escape  the  supposed  difficulties  of  the  common  reading  *n»,  which  has  here 
no  doubt  its  usual  sense  of  enemies,  with  a  particular  allusion  to  its  etymol- 
ogy as  meaning  those  who  press,  oppress,  and  overcome,  so  that  in  this  con- 
nexion it  would  really  suggest  the  idea  of  Rezin's  conquerors,  which  is  ex- 
pressed by  Hitzig.     Still  less  is  it  necessary  to  exchange  *pxi  for    |VS  or 
•jvsfisi,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  is  disposed  to   do,  on  the   authority  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  (sm  oQog  Ziwv). — "n^s  may  be  properly  translated,  as  it  usually  is, 
against  him,  which  idea  is  undoubtedly  included  ;    but  connected  as  it  is 
with  the  verb  s^,  the  preposition  may  be  taken  in  its  original  and  proper 
sense  of  over  or  above.     '  Then  he  exalted   Rezin's  enemies  above  him.? 
By  Tirx  we  are  to  understand  his  own  foes,  those  to  whose  attacks  he  was 
accustomed,  in  addition  to  the  enemies  of  Rezin,  the  Assyrians,     "pso11  is 
rendered  by  the  Septuagint  scatter  (diaoxtddott)   and  by   the  Vulgate  con- 
found (in  tumultum  vertet,  misprinted  in  the  London  Polyglot  in  tumulum). 
It  is  taken  in   the  sense  of  mixing  or  combining  by  Calvin   (coadunabit), 


isaiaii,  (ii  \  p,  ix.  178 

Grotius  (conglomeravit),  Munster,  Castalio,  ;md  others.  J.  II.  Michaelis,  who 

adopts  this  version,  explains  rst  as  a  preposition  meaoiog  with  (eosque  'inn  lios- 
tibus  Israelis  commiscebit).  Others  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  mixture  of 
nations  in  the  Assyrian  army  (Calvin),  or  to  the  mixture  of  Assyrians  with 
the  Syrian  population  (Vatablus).  Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary  and  in  the 
earlier  editions  of  his  Lexicon,  follows  Schultens  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  in  at- 
taching to  this  word  the  sense  of  arming,  which  is  adopted  by  Rosenmuller 
in  the  abridgment  of  his  Scholia,  and  by  Iiitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk  and 
DeWette.  But  Gesenius  himself,  in  his  Thesaurus,  now  explains  the  word 
as  meaning  to  excite,  raise  up,  or  instigate,  an  explanation  given  in  the 
Targum  (i~~n)  and  by  Saadias,  Abulwalid,  and  Cocceius  (instigat). 

V.  1 1 .  This  verse  contains  a  more  particular  description  of  Ephraim's 
own  enemies  who  were  to  be  stirred  up  against  him,  with  a  declaration  that  this 
was  not  to  be  the  end  of  the  infliction.  Aram  (or  Syria  in  the  widest  sense) 
before,  and  Philistia  (or  the  Philistines)  behind,  and  they  devour  Israel 
with  open  mouth  (i.  e.  ravenously).  For  all  this  (or  notwithstanding  all 
this)  his  wrath  dees  not  turn  back  (from  the  pursuit  or  the  attack),  and  still 
his  hand  is  stretched  out.  On  the  meaning  of  this  last  clause,  vide  supra, 
ch.  5 :  25.  The  Syrians  and  Philistines  are  supposed  by  some  to  be  refer- 
red to,  as  forming  part  of  the  Assyrian  army.  The  reference  may  however 
be  to  separate  attacks  from  these  two  powers.  Before  and  behind  may 
simply  mean  on  opposite  sides,  or  more  specifically  to  the  east  and  west, 
which  are  often  thus  described  in  Hebrew,  ns  bzn  does  not  mean  in  every 
place  (Targum)  or  on  all  sides  (Lowth) — nor  does  it  mean  with  all  their 
mouths  (Peshito),  i.  e.  the  mouths  of  all  their  enemies — but  with  the  whole 
mouth,  with  the  mouth  wide  open,  as  expressed  by  Luther  (mit  vollem 
Maul),  Calvin  (a  pleine  bouche),  and  most  modern  writers.  J.  H.  Michae- 
lis makes  rat  ^32  mean  on  account  or  in  consequence  of  all  this.  It  is 
clear,  however,  from  the  first  clause  and  the  whole  connexion,  that  the  re- 
ference is  not  to  the  people's  sin  but  to  their  punishment. 

V.  12.  These  continued  and  repeated  strokes  are  still  without  effect  in 
bringing  the  people  to  repentance.  And  the  people  has  not  turned  to  him 
that  smote  them,  and  Jehovah  of  Hosts  they  have  not  sought.  Sin  is  de- 
scribed in  Scripture  as  departure  from  God.  Repentance,  therefore,  is  re- 
turning to  him.  To  seek  God,  in  the  idiom  of  Scripture,  is  to  pray  to  him 
(Isai.  55:  6),  to  consult  him  (Isai.  8:  19),  to  resort  to  him  for  help  (Isai. 
31 :  1),  to  hold  communion  with  him  (Amos  5  :  4,  5).  Hence  it  is  some- 
times descriptive  of  a  godly  life  in  general  (Psalm  14 :  2).  So  here  it  in- 
cludes repentance,  conversion,  and  new  obedience.  Calvin,  followed  by 
the  English  version,  makes  the  vav  at  the  beginning  mean  because  or  for. 


174  ISAIAH,.  CHAP.  IX. 

This  verse,  however,  does  not  assign  the  reason  of  the  fact  recorded  in  the 
one  preceding,  but  continues  the  description.  God  went  on  punishing,  and 
the  people  went  on  sinning.  The  strict  sense  of  the  particle  may  therefore 
be  retained.  The  first  verb  agrees  with  cs  in  form  as  a  singular  ;  the  second 
agrees  with  it  in  sense  as  a  collective.  The  preposition  1»,  which  strictly 
means  until,  as  far  as,  is  regarded  by  Cocceius  as  emphatic  and  as  signify- 
ing that  the  people,  if  they  turned  at  all,  did  not  turn  far  enough.  But  as 
this  preposition  often  follows  ntf  when  used  in  the  sense  of  returning  to  God 
by  repentance,  it  may  be  regarded  merely  as  an  idiomatic  substitute  for  Vx. 
A  single  manuscript  reads  bs>  for  t*.  The  unusual  combination  of  the  article 
and  suffix  in  *iwn  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  (Lehrg.  p.  658)  as  a  simple 
anomaly,  and  by  Nordheimer  (vol.  2,  p.  13)  as  an  emphatic  form ;  but 
Ewald  (<§>  516.  3)  explains  it  by  supposing  in  to  be  not  a  possessive  but 
an  objective  suffix,  governed  by  the  participle.  The  difference  of  construc- 
tion is  the  same  as  in  the  English  phrases,  his  smiter  and  the  (one)  smiting 
him.  God  is  thus  described,  as  Aben  Ezra  has  observed,  in  order  to  in- 
timate that  he  was  the  inflicter  of  their  punishment — the  Assyrian  being 
merely  the  rod  of  his  anger  (ch.  10:  5) — and  also  that  his  stroke  sought 
to  lead  them  to  repentance. 

V.  13.  The  next  stroke  mentioned  is  a  sudden  destruction  among  all 
ranks  of  the  people,  the  extremes  being  designated  by  two  figures  drawn 
from  the  animal  and  vegetable  world.  And  Jehovah  has  cut  off  from  Israel 
head  and  tail,  branch  and  rush,  in  one  day.  itss  does  not  mean  a  root 
(Aben  Ezra),  nor  a  branch  in  general  (Kimchi),  but  a  branch  of  the  palm- 
tree  (Gesenius  in  Comm.)  or  the  tree  itself  (Gesenius  in  Thes.).  This  tree, 
though  now  rare  in  the  Holy  Land,  abounded  there  of  old,  especially  in  the 
southern  part,  where  several  places  were  named  after  it  (Deut.  34 :  3.  2 
Chron.  20 :  2).  Hence  it  appears  on  Roman  coins  as  the  symbol  of  Judea. 
It  is  highly  esteemed  in  the  east,  both  for  beauty  and  utility.  Its  branches 
grow  near  the  top  of  its  lofty  trunk  and  bend  towards  the  ground,  as  its 
leaves  do  also,  with  a  gentle  curvature,  resembling  that  of  a  hand  partly 
closed,  from  which  peculiarity  the  Hebrew  name  WW  and  the  Latin  palma 
seem  to  be  derived.  It  is  here  contrasted  with  the  ITDSK,  not  a  smaller 
branch  or  twig  (Jarchi),  but  a  rush  or  reed,  so  called  from  fijs  a  marsh, 
because  it  is  in  such  ground  that  it  chiefly  grows.  The  Targum  seems  to 
treat  the  figures  as  synonymous,  not  opposite  in  meaning,  perhaps  with  some 
allusion  to  the  Greek  word  riyzucov.  Palm  and  rush  are  explained  to  mean 
the  strong  and  weak  by  Kimchi  and  Cocceius,  who  refers  them  specifically 
to  the  young  men  and  warriors,  as  contrasted  with  the  widows  and  orphans 
in  v.  16.  It  is  best,  however,  to  understand  them  as  denoting  more  gener- 
ally that  which  is  superior  and  inferior,  including  every  class  in  the  com- 


ISA  J  AH,  CHAP.   IX  .  175 


inunity.  The  figures  are  correctly  resolved  by  the  Septoagmt  (jit'yuv  xut 
fic/.nin),  and  Strangely  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  (incurvantem  et  nj'nunan- 
tt'in),  perhaps  with  some  allusion  to  the  derivation  of  the  Hebrew  words. 
It  is  a  singular  conceit  of  Gill's  that  the  use  of  the  terms  head  and  tail  was 
intended  to  imply  that  the  people  had  become  beasts,  which  no  more  fol- 
lows than  it  does  from  the  use  of  the  terms  branch  and  rush  that  they  had 
become  plants. 

V.  14.  To  the  descriptive  figures  of  the  preceding  verse,  the  Prophet 
now  adds  a  specific  application  of  the  first.  Jehovah  had  cut  off  from 
Israel,  not  only  in  a  general  sense  the  upper  and  lower  classes  of  society, 
but  in  a  more  restricted  sense,  the  wicked  rulers,  who  were  the  corrupt  head 
of  the  body  politic,  and  the  false  prophets  who,  as  their  abject  adherents, 
and  on  account  of  their  hypocrisy  and  false  pretensions  to  divine  authority, 
might  be  regarded  as  its  tail,  because  contemptible  and  odious,  even  in  com- 
parison with  other  wicked  men,  who  laid  no  claim  to  a  religious  character. 
The  elder  and  the  favourite  (or  honourable  person),  he  is  the  head,  and  the 
prophet  teaching  falsehood,  he  is  the  tail.  On  the  meaning  of  )p%  and 
d^b  Nva3,  vide  supra,  ch.  3  :  2,  3.  That  the  head  is  not  explained  to  mean 
the  king,  may  be,  as  Hendewerk  suggests,  because  the  prophecy  relates  to 
the  time  which  immediately  succeeded  the  death  of  Pekah.  Henderson 
transposes  the  conjunction  in  the  last  clause — the  prophet  and  the  teacher  of 
lies — but  si-he  is  properly  a  participle,  and  is  needed  to  qualify  aona.  It  is 
not  the  prophet,  as  such,  but  the  prophet  teaching  falsehood,  who  is  called 
the  tail.  The  teaching  of  falsehood  does  not  mean  the  teaching  of  tra- 
ditions (J.  H.  Michaelis)  or  of  vice  (Septuagint),  but  teaching  in  the  name 
of  God  what  he  has  not  revealed.  The  Targum  makes  a<h23  denote  a  scribe 
(nso)  or  doctor  of  the  law ;  but  it  must  have  its  sense  of  prophet,  as  denoting 
one  who  claims  to  be  inspired.  The  false  prophets  are  called  the  tail,  not 
because  they  were  wreak  (Targum),  or  of  low  extraction  (Gill),  or  of  a 
mean  spirit,  like  a  dog  which  wags  its  tail  upon  its  master  (Musculus),  nor 
because  their  false  doctrine  was  like  the  poison  in  the  stings  of  scorpions 
(Menochius),  nor  because  the  civil  rulers  and  religious  teachers  were  the 
two  extremes,  between  which  the  mass  of  the  people  was  included  (Vitrin- 
ga)  ;  but  because  the  false  prophets  were  morally  the  basest  of  the  people,  and 
because  they  were  the  servile  adherents  and  supporters  of  the  wicked  rulers. 
With  respect  both  to  the  head  which  they  followed,  and  the  body  of  which 
they  were  the  vilest  part,  they  might  be  justly  called  the  tail.  This  verse 
has  been  rejected,  as  a  gloss  or  interpolation,  by  Houbigant,  Koppe,  Cube, 
Eichhorn,  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald  and  Knobel,  on  the  ground  that  it  inter- 
rupts the  natural  consecution  of  the  passage ;  that  it  is  too  prosaic  for  a 
poetical  context ;   that  it  contains  a  superfluous  explanation  of  a  common 


176  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 


proverbial  expresison ;  that  it  explains  it  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with  the 
context,  as  the  figures  in  v.  13  obviously  mean  the  high  and  the  low  gener- 
ally ;  that  it  explains  only  one  of  the  two  figures  in  that  verse ;  that  it  has 
the  very  form  of  an  explanatory  gloss  ;  that  it  breaks  the  strophical  arrange- 
ment by  giving  to  this  strophe  a  supernumerary  verse.  To  this  it  may  be 
answered,  that  correctly  understood  it  does  not  interrupt  the  train  of  thought, 
but  sensibly  advances  it ;  that  it  is  not  too  prosaic  for  the  context,  and  that 
if  it  were,  Isaiah  was  a  prophet,  not  a  poet  by  profession,  and  was  always 
wise  enough  to  sacrifice  rhetoric  and  rhythm  to  common  sense  and  inspira- 
tion ;  that  if  the  verse  contained  an  explanation  not  suggested  by  the  con- 
text, it  could  not  be  superfluous ;  that  it  is  not  an  explanation  of  the  figures 
in  v.  13,  but  a  more  specific  application  of  the  first  of  them  ;  that  the  Prophet 
did  not  make  a  like  use  of  the  second,  because  it  was  not  equally  suited  to 
his  purpose  of  expressing  his  contempt  for  the  false  prophets  ;  that  the  same 
form  is  used  in  cases  where  no  interpolation  is  suspected;  and  lastly,  that 
the  strophical  arrangement  is  itself  a  modern  figment,  founded  on  a  kind  of 
repetition  which  is  not  unusual  in  animated  prose.  (Vide  supra  ad  v.  7.) 
Another  answer  to  the  last  objection  is  given  in  Hendewerk's  commentary  on 
the  passage,  which,  with  this  exception,  is  an  admirable  refutation  of  the 
adverse  argument,  as  stated  by  Gesenius.  The  interpolation  of  these  words 
is  ascribed  by  Gesenius  to  some  very  ancient  Jewish  polemic.  But  if  so 
old,  why  may  it  not  be  a  little  older,  and  the  work  of  Isaiah  himself,  who 
was  certainly  no  friend  of  the  false  prophets  ?  The  rhetorical  objections  to 
this  obvious  conclusion  are  not  only  insufficient  because  they  are  rhetorical, 
but  because  the  rhetoric  itself  is  bad. 

V.  15.  This  verse  gives  a  reason,  not  why  all  classes  were  to  be 
destroyed,  but  why  the  rulers  and  false  prophets  had  been  specially  men- 
tioned. It  arises,  therefore,  naturally  out  of  the  fourteenth,  and  thus  inci- 
dentally proves  it  to  be  genuine.  The  truth  expressed  and  implied  is  that 
the  leaders  of  the  people  had  destroyed  them  and  should  perish  with  them. 
The  leaders  of  this  people  have  been  seducers,  and  the  led  of  them  (are) 
swallowed  up  (or  ruined).  On  the  double  meaning  of  'nursa,  and  the  paro- 
nomasia erroneously  introduced  by  some  translators,  vide  supra,  ch.  3:12, 
where  the  verb  s?s  occurs  in  the  same  connexion.  On  Ewald's  supposition, 
that  the  fourteenth  verse  was  interpolated  from  that  chapter,  the  verse  before 
us  ought  to  be  rejected  also.  Luther  explains  vntt»«  as  meaning  those  who 
suffer  themselves  to  be  led  (die  sich  leiten  lassen)  ;  Hendewerk,  those  who 
were  to  be,  or  ought  to  have  been  rendered  happy  (seine  zu  begliickenden). 
But  even  supposing  that  the  Hebrew  word  was  intended  to  suggest  both  ideas, 
it  cannot  be  correct  to  express  one  in  the  first  clause  and  the  other  in  the  second, 
as"  the  original  expressions  correspond  exactly,  and  the  primary  sense  must 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  I  \.  177 

be  the  same  in  both.     The  suffix  in  VnttlW,  is  omitted  a<  superfluous  by  the 

Vulgate  and  Geseohis.  Henderson  refers  it  to  "Htfara  as  its  antecedent  (led 
by  them)  ;  but  the  true  antecedent  is  osn  (such  of  the  people  as  are  thus 
misled),  and  is  correctly  pointed  out  as  such  by  Calvin  (in  eo),  Vatablus 
(ex  hoc  populo),  and  others.  According  to  J.  D.  Michaclis,  they  are  said 
to  be  swallowed  up  in  sloughs  and  pitfalls  ;  according  to  Jarchi,  in  ways 
from  which  there  is  no  exit.  It  is  more  probably,  however,  a  strong  figure 
for  losing  the  way  (Luther),  or  for  destruction  in  general  (Calvin). 

V.  16.  Therefore  (because  the  people  are  thus  incorrigibly  impenitent) 
the  Lord  will  not  rejoice  over  their  young  men  (literally  chosen  ones,  i.  e. 
for  military  service,  the  word  being  used  in  the  general  sense  of  youths,  but 
seldom  without  reference  to  war),  and  on  their  orphans  and  their  widows 
(elsewhere  represented  as  peculiarly  the  objects  of  God's  care)  he  ivill  not 
have  mercy  (expressing  in  the  strongest  form  the  extent  and  severity  of  the 
threatened  judgments),  for  every  one  of  them  (literally  of  it,  referring  to  the 
singular  noun  people)  is  profane  (or  impious)  and  an  evil  doer,  and  every 
mouth  (is)  speaking  folly  (in  the  strong  Hebrew  sense  of  wickedness).  For 
all  this  his  wrath  is  not  turned  back,  and  still  is  his  hand  outstretched.  The 
Vulgate.  Aben  Ezra,  Calvin,  Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  Furst  give  to  epn  the 
sense  of  hypocrite  or  hypocritical.  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  the  other  modern 
writers  give  it  the  general  sense  of  impious  or  wicked,  as  expressed  by  the 
Septuagint  (avopoi).  This  explanation  is  supported  by  etymological  an- 
alogy, the  other  by  rabbinical  tradition.  Lee,  from  the  analogy  of  Syriac, 
explains  it  to  mean  heathenish,  idolatrous  (Hebrew  Lexicon,  s.  v.).  The  a 
in  sia  is  taken  as  a  preposition  (of  evil,  made  up  or  consisting  of  evil)  by 
Hitzig  (vom  Argen),  Ewald  (vom  Bosen),  DeWette,  and  Knobel.  Ge- 
senius, Umbreit,  and  the  older  writers  treat  it  as  a  participle  from  rsi. 
Calvin  explains  !"i^23  121  as  implying  that  they  uttered  their  own  wicked- 
ness, betrayed  themselves ;  but  it  probably  means  nothing  more  than  that 
they  were  wicked  in  speech  as  well  as  act.  For  *****,  Lowth  reads  rrm  on 
the  authority  of  eighteen  manuscripts. 

V.  17.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  why  God's  hand  is  still  stretched  out 
for  the  destruction  of  his  people,  by  describing  that  destruction  as  the  natural 
effect  of  their  own  wickedness,  here  likened  to  a  fire  beginning  near  the 
ground  among  the  thorns  and  briers,  then  extending  to  the  undergrowth  or 
brushwood  of  the  forest,  which,  as  it  consumes  away,  ascends  in  a  volume 
of  smoke.  For  wickedness  burneth  as  the  fire,  thorns  and  briers  it  con- 
sumes, then  kindles  in  the  thickets  of  the  forest,  and  they  roll  themselves  up- 
wards, a  column  (literally,  an  ascent)  of  smoke.  Most  of  the  older  writers 
translate  all  the  verbs  as  futures,  thus  converting  the  whole  verse  into  a 

12 


H8  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

threatening.  But  the  interchange  of  preterite  and  future  forms,  as  well  as 
the  connexion,  seem  to  show  that  they  should  be  explained  as  presents,  and 
as  expressing  the  natural  effects  of  wickedness,  in  the  form  of  a  description 
or  a  general  proposition.  The  vav  conversive  before  M*n  shows  it  to  be 
dependent  on  the  foregoing  verbs  and  posterior  in  point  of  time,  a  relation 
which  may  be  expressed  in  English  by  exchanging  and  for  then.  Hender- 
son gives  n2'.m  the  specific  meaning  of  idolatry  (see  Zech.  5  :  8-11),  but 
Luther  more  correctly  that  of  wickedness  in  general,  of  heart  and  life  (das 
gottlose  Wesen).  Thorns  and  briers  are  often  used  as  emblems  of  the 
wicked  (Mic.  7:  4.  Neh.  1 :  10.  2  Sam.  23:  6),  and  their  burning  as  a 
figure  for  the  punishment  of  sinners  (Isai.  33:  12.  Ps.  118:  12.  2  Sam. 
23:  7),  especially  by  means  of  foreign  enemies  (Isai.  10:  17.32:  13). 
Most  of  the  recent  German  versions  render  the  last  Vav  so  that,  in  order  to 
show  that  what  precedes  is  related  to  what  follows  as  the  cause  to  its»efFect. 
The  verb  •oSKtV1,  which  occurs  nowhere  else,  has  been  variously  derived 
and  explained  as  meaning  to  be  pulverized  (Cocceius,  Junius),  to  move 
proudly  (Castellus,  J.  D.  Michaelis),  to  ascend  (Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Cal- 
vin). This  last  sense  is  combined  with  that  of  spreading  out  by  J.  H.  Mi- 
chaelis (ut  expandant  et  elevent  se.)  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  other  modern 
Germans,  adopt  the  sense  of  rolling  or  being  rolled  together,  which  is  given 
in  the  Vulgate  and  Peshito,  and  by  Saadias,  Abulwalid,  Jarchi,  and  Rabbi 
Parchon.  The  Vulgate  makes  the  verb  agree  with  nfKfl  (convolvetur  su- 
perbia  fumi),  Eichhorn  with  fiSn  ;  but  it  really  agrees  with  the  thickets  of 
the  forest — and  they  (the  burning  thickets)  are  rolled,  (or  roll  themselves) 
together.  The  meaning  of  mxa  is  not  pride  (Vulgate),  but  elevation  or  as- 
cent, and  in  this  connexion  an  ascending  body,  column,  cloud,  or  volume. 
It  may  either  be  governed  by  the  preposition  in  understood,  or  construed  as 
he  object  of  the  verb,  or  put  in  apposition  with  its  subject.  They  roll  up- 
wards (in  or  as)  a  volume  of  smoke. 

V.  18.  The  figure  of  a  general  conflagration  is  continued  in  this  verse, 
and  then  exchanged  for  a  literal  description  of  the  miseries  produced  by  civil 
war.  In  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  land  is  darkened  with  the 
smoke — or  heated  by  the  flame — and  the  people  is  like  food  (or  fuel)  of 
fire — one  another  (literally,  man  his  brother)  they  do  not  spare.  Most 
writers  understand  the  n  at  the  beginning  in  the  sense  of  by  or  through, 
as  denoting  the  cause  or  the  means  by  which  the  effect  is  produced. 
Thus  Hendewerk  observes  that  the  displeasure  of  Jehovah  is  described  as 
the  second  source  of  misery  ;  and  Henderson  says  that  "  instead  of  being 
further  represented  as  resulting  from  wickedness,  the  conflagration  is  re- 
solved into"  the  anger  of  God  as  the  avenger  of  sin."  But  this  is  not  neces- 
sarily the  meaning  of  the  particle,  and  in  ch.  13  :  13,  where  the  same  phrase 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   IX.  179 

occurs — in  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  and  in  the  day  of  his  fierce 
anger — the  2  in  one  ofause  seems  to  mean  the  same  thing  as  --"-in  the  other. 
It  is  probable  therefore  that  in  this  case  also  it  denotes  not  the  cause  but  the 
time  of  the  event,  and  should  not  be  rendered  by  or  through,  but  simply  in 
i.  e.  in  the  time  or  during.  There  il  then  no  departure  from  the  import 
of  theigure  in  v.  17.  That  the  sufferings  of  Israel  were  produced  by  the 
divine  wrath,  is  abundantly  implied  though  not  expressed. — prttl,  which 
occurs  only  here,  has  been  variously  derived  and  explained  as  meaning  to 
tremble  (Peshito),  to  be  disturbed  (Vulgate),  to  be  smitten  (Saadias),  to  be 
wasted  (Gesenius  in  Lex.  Man.)  etc.  Kimchi,  Luther,  Calvin,  the  English 
Version,  Vitringa,  Lowth,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Barnes,  and  Umbreit,  make  it 
mean  to  be  darkened,  which  agrees  well  with  the  figures  of  the  foregoing  verse. 
But  Gessnius  (in  Thes.),  Rosenmuller,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Ewald, 
Knobel,  follow  the  Septuagint  and  Targum  and  the  Arabic  analogy,  in 
giving  it  the  sense  of  being  burnt  or  burnt  up.  The  agreement  of  y~x  with  a 
masculine  verb,  here  and  in  a  few  other  cases  (e.  g.  Gen.  13 :  6.  Ps.  105: 
30),  may  be  resolved  into  the  rule  of  Hebrew  syntax,  that  the  verb,  when 
it  stands  before  its  subject,  often  takes  the  simplest  form  without  regard  to 
the  distinction  of  genders. — t&SHHD,  a  derivative  of  Vax  to  devour,  is  peculiar 
not  only  to  this  book,  but  to  this  chapter.  It  denotes  not  the  act  of  burning 
or  consuming  (Lee,  Heb.  Lex.),  but  the  thing  consumed.  The  particle 
before  it  is  omitted  by  Gesenius  and  DeWette,  but  is  really  important  as 
denoting  that  the  language  of  the  verse  is  metaphorical.  The  grammatical 
subject  of  lbarp  is  not  ©•«,  but  the  people  understood.  The  original  construc- 
tion is  retained  in  the  versions  of  Cocceius,  Rosenmuller,  Hitzig,  Barnes,  and 
Ewald.  The  word  brother  may  have  merely  its  idiomatic  meaning  of 
another  person,  or  be  treated  as  emphatic,  and  as  meaning  that  the  nearest 
ties  of  blood  were  disregarded  (Calvin).  Kimchi  supposes  that  although 
the  figure  of  a  conflagration  seems  to  be  dropped  in  the  last  clause,  there  is 
really  a  tacit  allusion  to  the  mutual  ignition  of  one  tree  or  piece  of  wood  by 
another. 

V.  19.  The  horrors  of  civil  war  are  now  presented  under  the  fearful  im- 
age of  insatiable  hunger,  leading  men  to  devour  their  own  flesh.  And  he 
tears  on  the  right  hand  and  is  hungry  still,  and  devours  on  the  left  and  still 
they  arc  not  satisfied ;  each  the  flesh  of  his  own  arm,  they  devour.  Ewald 
refers  the  first  clause  to  the  past  and  the  second  to  the  present ;  Umbreit 
the  first  to  the  present  and  the  second  to  the  future.  But  the  very  inter- 
mingling of  the  past  and  future  forms  shows  that  the  whole  was  meant  to  be 
descriptive.  The  first  verb  has  been  variously  rendered  to  turn  aside  (Sep- 
tuagint, Vulgate),  to  withdraw  one's  self  (Pagninus,  Montanus),  to  distri- 
bute (Schmidius),  to  plunder  (Targum,  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  Luther),  to  snatch 


180  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX. 

(Calvin,  Grotius,  English  Version,  Lowth)  ;  but  the  true  sense  seems  to  be 
to  cut  or  tear  (Junius,  Cocceius,  Henderson),  particularly  with  the  teeth  (De 
Dieu),  and  thence  to  devour  (Gesenius,  DeWette,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Kno- 
bel).  The  English  version  seems  to  make  this  verb  agree  with  ^«  in  v.  18 
(he  shall  snatch)  ;  Calvin,  Cocceius  and  Vitringa,  with  a  distributive  pro- 
noun understood  (rapiet  quisque)  ;  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  G%rmans 
better  still  with  an  indefinite  subject  (one  devours  or  they  devour).  The 
Prophet  sees  one  assailing  the  other  on  the  right,  and  the  other  in  turn  at- 
tacking him  upon  the  left,  and  this  double  subject,  corresponding  to  a  man 
and  his  brother  in  verse  18,  may  have  given  occasion  to  the  plural  forms 
issta  and  ibsa"1,  corresponding  to  iVair,  the  plural  verbs  referring  to  the  peo- 
ple collectively,  the  singular  nouns  to  the  component  individuals.  The 
Tarcum  explains  right  and  left  as  meaning  south  and  north  ;  but  they  simply 
denote  that  the  devouring  should  be  mutual  and  extend  in  all  directions. 
The  flesh  of  his  own  arm  is  explained  to  mean  the  wealth  of  his  kindred  by 
the  Targum  (m^-np  ^ow)  and  Grotius  (res  cognatorum)  ;  but  the  figures 
evidently  have  a  stronger  meaning.  Eating  and  fighting  are  cognate  ideas 
in  the  Hebrew  etymology  (compare  tnb  and  ttrtw)  ;  but  in  this  case  the 
additional  idea,  that  the  fighting  is  between  near  kinsmen,  is  expressed  by 
the  strong  figure  of  devouring  one's  own  flesh,  while  the  special  mention  of 
the  arm  may  imply  (as  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  suggest)  that  the  mutual 
destroyers  ought  to  have  been  mutual  protectors.  Knobel  indeed  objects  to 
this  as  a  far-fetched  explanation,  and  supposes  simply  an  allusion  to  the  fact 
that  starving  men  do  actually  gnaw  their  arms,  as  the  most  convenient  and 
accessible  portion  of  the  body.  Gesenius,  Rosenmuller,  and  Maurer  give 
to  arm  itself  the  sense  of  neighbour,  which  is  hardly  justified  by  Jer.  19  :  9. 
Still  less  ground  is  there  for  an  emendation  of  the  text  by  reading  isi  for 
is>-if ,  as  proposed  by  Seeker  and  approved  by  Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase  (mr^p)  and  the  Alexandrian  text  of  the  Septuagint 
(zov  addepov  avzov)  which  varies  from  the  common  reading  (rov  fiqaxiovog 
avtov). 

V.  20.  The  application  of  the  figures  in  v.  19,  is  now  made  plain  by 
the  Prophet  himself,  who  has  been  drawing  no  imaginary  scene.  It  is 
Israel,  the  chosen  race,  that  feeds  on  its  own  flesh.  They  devour  each  the 
flesh  of  his  own  arm — Manasseh  (devours)  Ephraim,  and  Ephraim  fylanas- 
seh — and  together  they  (are)  against  Judah.  For  all  this  his  wrath  is  not 
turned  baelz  and  still  his  hand  (is)  stretched  out.  The  tribes  here  specified 
are  chosen  for  two  reasons  :  first,  because  Judah  and  Joseph  were  the  most 
important  branches  of  the  stock  of  Israel,  as  well  before  as  after  the  disrup- 
tion ;  and  secondly,  because  the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  were 
more  nearly  related  to  each  other  than  to  any  of  the  rest,  and  therefore  their 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  IX.  181 

hostility  afforded  the  most  striking  illustration  of  the  mutual  rancour  which  the 
Prophet  had    described   as   prevalent.     The  Targum,  followed  by  Jarchi, 
atly  weakens  the  effect  of  the  first  clause  by  explaining  rx  to  be  the  pre- 
position with,  implying  merely  the  conjunction  of  these  two   tribes  against 
Judah,  without  any  intimation   of  their  mutual  hostility.     The  repetition  of 
the  names  in   that  case  would  be  perfectly  unmeaning.     Gesenius,  Hitzig, 
and  Uinbivit,  also  explain   rx  as  a  preposition,  but  in  the  sense  of  against, 
which  it  seldom  has,  and  which  is  in  this  case  very  far  from  being  obvious. 
Ewald,   DeWette,  and   Knobel,  correctly  adhere  to  the  old  construction 
given  in  the  Septuagint,  which  takes  rx  as  the  sign  of  the  objective  or  ac- 
cusative, and  repeats  the  verb  devour  between  the  two  proper  names.     Vi- 
tringa  goes  still  further  and  makes  all  the  names  accusatives  (Ephraimum 
Manassen,  Manassen  Ephraimum),  which  leaves  the  verb  without  a  subject 
in  the  sentence,  and  wholly  overlooks   the  objective  particle.     In  the  next 
clause  various  verbs  have  been  supplied — they  shall  besiege  (Septuagint), 
they  shall  unite  (Targum),  they  make  an  attack  (Augusti) — but  the  simplest 
method  is   to  supply  the  verb   of  existence  arc  or  shall  be.     Hitzig  denies 
that   any  joint  action  against  Judah  is  ascribed  to  Manasseh  and  Ephraim. 
But  vim  seldom  if  ever  means  alike  or  equally  ;  the  cases  cited  by  Ge- 
senius  (Thes.  torn.  2.  p.  5S9)  may  all   be   resolved   into  examples  of  the 
usual  and  proper  sense,  at  once,  together,  implying  unity  of  time,  place,  and 
action.     Eichhorn's  proposal  to  reject  this  clause  as  a  gloss,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  interrupts  the  sense  and  is  at  variance  with  the  context  (Hebr.  Proph. 
II.  p.  219),  although  not  more  unreasonable  than  the  other  propositions  of  the 
same  kind  which  have  been  already  stated,  is  nevertheless  sufficiently  ab- 
surd.    Not  only  is  it  common  for  intestine  wars  to  give  occasion  and  give 
place  to  foreign  ones,  as  Gesenius  most  truly  says ;  but  this  clause  really 
continues  the  description  and  adds  greatly  to  its  force,  by  suggesting  the  idea 
that  the  mutual  enmity  of  these  two  kindred  tribes  could  only  be  exceeded 
by  their  commow  hatred  to  their  common  relative,  the  tribe  of  Judah. — 
Grotius  and  Junius  would  refer  this  verse  to  the  time  of  Sennacherib's  inva- 
sion ;  but  the  kingdom  of  the   ten  tribes  was  then  no  longer  in  existence, 
and  there  seems  to  be  no  ground  for  Junius's  assertion  or  conjecture,  that 
the  conquered  Israelites  were  forced  to  serve  in  the  Assyrian  army  against 
Judah.     The  allusions  of  the  verse  are  not  to  one  exclusive  period,  but  to  a 
protracted  series  of  events.     The  intestine  strifes  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh 
although  not  recorded  in   detail,  may  be  inferred   from  various  incidental 
statements.     Of  their  ancient  rivalry  we   have  examples  in  the  history  of 
Gideon  (Judges  8:  1-3)  and  Jephtha  (Judges  12:  1-6)  ;  and   as  to  later 
times,  it  is  observed  by  Vitringa  that  of  all  who  succeeded  Jeroboam  the 
Second  on  the  throne   of  Israel,  Pekahiah  alone  appears  to  have  attained  it 
without   treachery  or  bloodshed.     That  Manasseh  and  Ephraim  were  both 


182  ISAIAH,  CHAP.   X. 

against  Judah,  may  refer  either  to  their  constant  enmity  or  to  particular  attacks. 
No  sooner  did  one  party  gain  the  upper  hand  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes,  than  it  seems  to  have  addressed  itself  to  the  favourite  work  of  ha- 
rassing or  conquering  Judah,  as  in  the  case  of  Pekah,  who  invaded  it  almost 
as  soon  as  he  had  waded  to  the  throne  through  the  blood  of  Pekahiah. — The 
repetition  in  the  last  clause  intimates  that  even  these  extreme  evils  should 
be  followed  by  still  worse  ;  that  these  were  but  the  beginning  of  sorrows  : 
that  the  end  was  not  yet. 


CHAPTER  X. 


The  prophet  first  completes  his  description  of  the  prevalent  iniquity, 
with  special  reference  to  injustice  and  oppression,  as  a  punishment  of  which 
he  threatens  death  and  deportation  by  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians,  vs.  1—4. 
He  then  turns  to  the  Assyrians  themselves,  God's  chosen  instruments,  whom 
he  had  commissioned  against  Israel,  to  punish  and  degrade  it,  but  whose 
own  views  were  directed  to  universal  conquest,  to  illustrate  which  the  As- 
syrian himself  is  introduced  as  boasting  of  his  tributary  princes  and  his  rapid 
conquests,  which  had  met  with  no  resistance  from  the  people  or  their  gods, 
and  threatening  Judah  with  .a  like  fate,  unaware  of  the  destruction  which 
awaits  himself,  imputing  his  success  to  his  own  strength  and  wisdom,  and 
glorying,  though  a  mere  created  instrument,  over  his  maker  and  his  mover, 
vs.  5—15.  His  approaching  doom  is  then  described  under  the  figure  of  a 
forest  suddenly  and  almost  totally  consumed  by  fire,  vs.  16-19.  This  suc- 
cession of  events  is  to  have  the  effect  of  curing  the  propensity  to  trust  in 
man  rather  than  God,  at  least  among  the  elect  remnant  who  survive  ;  for 
though  the  ancient  promises  of  great  increase  shall  certainly  be  verified,  only 
a  remnant  shall  escape  God's  righteous  judgments,  vs.  20—23.  To  these 
the  Prophet  now  addresses  words  of  strong  encouragement,  with  a  renewed 
prediction  of  a  judgment  on  Assyria  similar  to  that  on  Midian  at  Oreb  and 
on  Egypt  at  the  Red  Sea,  which  is  then  described,  in  the  most  vivid  manner, 
by  an  exhibition  of  the  enemy's  approach,  from- post  to  post,  until  he,  stands 
before  Jerusalem,  and  then,  with  a  resumption  of  the  metaphor  before  used, 
his  destruction  is  described  as  the  prostration  of  a  forest — trees  and  thickets 
— by  a  mighty  axe,  vs.  24-34. 

It  is  commonly  agreed  that  the  close  of  the  chapter  relates  chiefly,  if 
not  wholly,  to  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army,  recorded  in  ch.  37: 


ISAIAH.   CHAP.   X.  183 

36.     The  exceptions  to  this  statement,  and   the  arguments  on  both  sid 
will  be  given  in  the  exposition  of  v.  28. 

For  the  best  illustration  of  the  geographical  details  in  vs.  28-32,  a  gen- 
oral  reference  may  here  be  given  to  Robinson's  Palestine,  $  9  (vol.  2.  pp. 
104—151). 

V.  1.  In  these  four  verses,  as  in  the  different  divisions  of  the  ninth  chap- 
ter, there  is  an  accusation  followed  by  a  threatening  of  punishment.  The 
sin  denounced  in  the  first  two  verses  is  that  of  oppression  and  injustice. 
The  punishment  threatened  is  desolation  by  a  foreign  foe,  and  its  effect, 
captivity  and  death.  Woe  unto  them  that  decree  decrees  of  injustice,  and  that 
write  oppression  which  they  have  prescribed.  Many  interpreters  suppose 
two  different  kinds  of  public  functionaries  to  be  here  described,  viz.  judges 
or  magistrates  and  their  clerks  or  scribes  (Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Abarbenel, 
Grotius,  Junius),  or  evil  counsellors  and  sovereigns  or  their  secretaries  (Cleri- 
cus),  or  civil  rulers  and  prophets  (Hendewerk).  The  Piel  form  CB3D  is  ex- 
plained as  a  causative  by  Pagninus,  Montanus,  Vatablus,  and  Munster 
(jubent  scribere).  Others  suppose  the  distinction  to  be  simply  that  between 
enacting  and  recording.  But  the  more  common  and  probable  opinion  is 
that  the  parallel  verbs  are  here  substantially  synonymous,  as  PP5"1  originally 
means  to  engrave,  or  inscribe  by  incision,  which  was  probably  the  oldest 
mode  of  writing.  Thus  the  Septuagint  renders  both  ypucpovGi.  The  meta- 
phor of  writing  is  used  elsewhere  to  describe  the  decrees  and  providential 
purposes  of  God  (Isai.  65  :  6.  Job  13  :  26).  Here  the  terms  may  include 
both  legislative  and  judicial  functions,  which  are  not  so  nicely  distinguished 
in  ancient  as  in  modern  theories  of  government.  The  divine  displeasure  is 
expressed  against  all  abuse  of  power.  '  The  primary  sense  of  Vis  seems  to 
be  inanity  or  nonentity  ;  then  more  specifically,  the  absence  of  truth  and 
moral  goodness  ;  and  still  more  positively  falsehood,  injustice,  wickedness  in 
general.  The  primary  import  of  \n9  is  toil  or  painful  labour  ;  then  (like  the 
Greek  aAd  Latin  novog,  labor)  suffering,  vexation.  It  is  related  to  *px  as 
the  effect  to  the  cause,  as  the  oppression  of  the  subject  to  the  injustice  of 
the  ruler.  The  proper  sense  of  both  words  is  retained  by  Cocceius  in  his 
version  (statuta  vanitatis,  laborem  scribentibus).  The  masoretic  accents 
require  bas  to  be  governed  by  trirz*z  and  separated  from  "irz.  This  makes 
it  necessary  to  supply  a  relative  before  the  last  verb.  Otherwise,  it  would 
be  more  natural  to  understand  D"»SPDO  as  a  title  of  office,  and  to  supply  the 
relative  before  V-zr.  This  is  pointed  out  by  Aben  Ezra  as  the  true  construc- 
tion, and  Luther  accordingly  has  Schriftgelehrte  as  the  subject  of  both 
clauses.  Coeceius  makes  the  whole  refer  to  the  elders  of  the  people  or 
hereditary  magistrates,  and  the  scribes  or  doctors  of  the  law,  by  whom  all  public 
matters  were  controlled  in  our  Saviour's  time.     By  the  yw  "ppn  he  under- 


184  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 

stands  the  traditions  of  the  elders,  and  by  hn"  the  yoke  which  they  imposed 
upon  the  conscience.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  Prophet  is  still  de- 
scribing the  evils  which  existed  in  his  own  day,  although  not  peculiar  to  it. 
The  Piel  form  of  the  last  verb,  if  it  has  any  distinctive  meaning,  is  a  fre- 
quentative, and  indicates  repeated  and  habitual  action. 

V.  2.  As  the  first  verse  describes  the  sinners  and  their  sin,  so  the  sec- 
ond sets  forth  its  effect  upon  the  people.  To  turn  aside  (or  exclude)  from 
judgment  the  weak,  and  to  take  away  (by  violence)  the  right  of  the  poor 
(or  afflicted)  of  my  people,  that  widows  may  be  (or  so  that  widows  are)  their 
spoil,  and  the  fatherless  they  plunder.  The  infinitive  indicates  the  tendency 
and  actual  effect  of  their  conduct.  The  Septuagint  omits  the  preposition 
and  governs  judgment  by  the  verb  directly  (JxxIUovtzq  -a^igiv  77700^00*-).  This 
form  of  expression  frequently  occurs  in  the  sense  of  perverting  justice  or 
doing  injustice  (Deut.  27:  19.  Lam.  3:  25'.  Ex.  23:  6.  Deut.  26:  19, 
24 :  17.  1  Sam.  8 :  3).  Nearly  allied  to  these,  in  form  and  meaning,  is  the 
phrase  to  turn  one  aside  in  judgment  (Prov.  18:5)  or  in  the  gate,  as  the  place 
where  courts  were  held  in  eastern  towns  (Amos  5:  12),  or  with  an  ellipsis 
of  the  second  noun  to  turn  the  person  aside,  i.  e.  to  deprive  him  of  his  right 
by  false  judgment  (Mai.  3:  5.  Isai.  29:  21),  or  with  an  ellipsis  of  both 
nouns  (Exod.  23  :  2).  But  the  phrase  here  used  is  to  turn  one  aside  from 
the  judgment,  and  seems  intended,  to  express  not  so  much  the  idea  of  judg- 
ing wrongfully  as  that  of  refusing  to  judge  at  all.  '  Verus  sensus  est  ut 
arceant  pauperes  a  judicio,  vel  efficiant  ut  cadant  causa  (Calvin). '  The 
same  charge  is  brought  against  the  rulers  of  Judah  in  ch.  1  :  23.  The  ex- 
pression of  my  people  intimates,  not  only  that  the  sufferers  were  Israelites, 
but  that  they  sustained  a  peculiar  relation  to  Jehovah,  who  is  frequently 
described  in  Scripture  as  the  protector  of  the  helpless,  and  especially  of 
widows  and  orphans  (Ps.  68:  5).  The  second  verb  (bts)  means  to  take 
away  by  violence,  and  may  here  be  understood  either  strictly,  or  figuratively 
in  the  sense  of  violating  justice,  as  the  Vulgate  expresses  it  (ut  vim  facerent 
causae  humilium). 

V.  3.  The  wicked  rulers  are  themselves  addressed,  and  warned  of  an 
approaching  crisis,  when  they  must  be  deprived  of  all  that  they  now  glory  in. 
And  (though  you  are  now  powerful  and  rich)  what  will  ye  do  in  the  day  of 
visitation,  and  in  the  ruin  (which)  shall  come  from  far  (though  all  may  ap- 
pear safe  at  home)  ?  To  whom  ivill  ye  flee  for  help,  and  where  will  ye  leave 
your  glory  (for  safe-keeping)  ?  The  questions  imply  negation,  as  if  he  had 
said,  you  can  do  nothing  to  protect  yourselves,  there  is  no  place  of  conceal- 
ment for  your  glory.  Junius  and  Tremellius  make  the  construction  hypo- 
thetical— what  would  you  do  ? — to  whom  would  you  fly  ? — where  could  you 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X.  185 

leave?  But  as  this  implies  tliat  the  contingency  alluded  to  might  not  oc- 
cur, it  virtually  changes  a  threat  into  b  promise,  which  would  here  be  out  of 
place,  between  the  woe  at  the  beginning  of  v.  1  and  the  menace  at  the  end 
of  v.  4.  By  the  day  of  visitation  Vitringa  understands  a  day  of  inspection 
and  examination  ;  but  this  is  a  modern  or  a  technical  meaning  of  the  term. 
Cocceius  understands  by  the  phrase,  here  and  elsewhere,  even  in  Ps.  8 :  5, 
the  time  when  God  should  be  incarnate,  and  literally  visit  his  people  as  a 
man.  According  to  the  usage  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  day  of  visitation 
is  €i  time  when  God  manifests  his  presence  specially,  whether  in  mercy  or 
in  wrath,  but  most  frequently  the  latter.  nxva  originally  signifies  a  noise 
or  tumult,  and  is  therefore  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  ruin  caused  by  foreign 
invasions,  such  as  those  of  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians,  which  appear  to 
be  alluded  to.  xinn  pmen  is  properly  an  independent  clause — from  afar  it 
shall  come — but  in  order  to  conform  the  expression  to  our  idiom,  a  relative 
may  be  supplied  as  in  the  English  version.  The  br,  as  Kimchi  observes,  is 
in  this  connexion  simply  equivalent  to  ^x.  The  idea  of  fleeing  for  help  is 
expressed  by  the  same  verb  and  noun  in  ch.  20 :  6.  By  TO3  we  are  not 
simply  to  understand  nobility  (Musculus,  Forerius,  Henderson) — or  wealth 
(Clericus,  Lowth,  Rosenmiiller) — much  less  the  gains  of  oppression  and  in- 
justice (Jarchi) — least  of  all  their  idols  (Hendewerk) — but  whatever  they 
now  boasted  of  and  trusted  in. 

V.  4.  It  (your  glory)  does  not  bow  beneath  the  prisoners,  and  (yet)  they 
shall  fall  beneath  the  slain — i.  e.  if  they  do  not  bow  under  the  captives 
they  shall  fall  under  the  slain — or,  such  of  them  as  do  not  bow,  etc.     Be- 
neath may  either  be  strictly   understood  as  meaning  under  their  feet,  or 
simply  among  them.     Junius  and  Piscator  understand  it  to  mean  lower  than 
the  captives  and  the  slain.     DeDieu  and  Rosenmiiller  make  it  an  adverb 
meaning  down.     Ewald  explains  it  to  mean  instead  of,  in  the  place  or  qual- 
ity of,  equivalent  to  as — as  captives  and  as  slain.     Cocceius  and  Umbreit 
make  the  first  clause  interrogative — does  he  not  bow  among  the  captives  ? 
Kimchi,  DeDieu,  Gesenius,  and  DeWette,  render  ^nbn,  without  me,  i.  e. 
having  forsaken  me,  or  being  forsaken  by  me  (Junius) — without  my  inter 
position.     Some  make  it  mean  unless,  referring  to  what  goes  before — they 
can  do  nothing  but  bow,   etc.   (Ewald)— or  to  what  follows — unless  one 
bow,  etc.  they  shall  fall,  etc.     The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  Castalio  and 
Clericus,  take  irta  in  the  sense  of  lest  or  that  not,  and  continue  the  con- 
struction from  the  preceding  verse — where  will  ye  leave  your  glory,  that  ye 
bow  not,  etc.     Luther  adopts  the  same  construction,  but  connects  sis  with 
Tfiaa  in  v.  3.     Where  will  ye  leave  your  glory,  that  it  bow  not,  etc.     This 
agrees  well  with  Henderson's  explanation  of  1132  as  meaning  nobility  or 
chief  men,  which  would  account  also  for  the  change  to  the  plural  form  in 


196  ISAIAH.  CHAP.  X. 

■^>5\  DeDieu  makes  n^bx  and  d^avifi  the  subjects  of  the  verbs — taking 
r,nn  as  an  adverb  meaning  down  or  beneath — <  besides  that  the  captive 
sinks,  they  shall  fall  down  slain.'  Knobel  suggests,  as  a  possible  construc- 
tion, that  sns  may  mean  to  bow  down  to  the  slaughter  as  in  ch.  65  :  12,  in 
which  case  both  verbs  would  express  the  idea  of  a  violent  death.  On  the 
whole,  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  this  difficult  and  much  disputed 
verse  is  that  which  explains  it  as  a  solemn  declaration  that  their  glory  and 
especially  their  noble  chiefs  must  either  go  into  captivity  or  fall  in  battle. 
The  concluding  formula — for  all  this  his  wrath  is  not  turned  back  and  still 
his  hand  is  stretched  out — again  suggests  the  fearful  thought  that  all  these 
accumulated  judgments  would  be  insufficient  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the 
sinner  or  appease  the  wrath  of  God. 

V.  5.  The  Assyrian  is  now  distinctly  brought  into  view,  as  the  instru- 
ment which  God  would  use  in  punishing  his  people.     But  instead  of  simply 
executing  this   task,  the  Assyrians  would  seek  their  own  ends  and  exceed 
their  commission,  and  for.  this  they  must  themselves  be  punished.     The  Pro- 
phet begins  therefore  with  a  woe  against  them.      Woe  unto  Asshur  (the  As- 
syrian or  Assyria  itself),  the  rod  of  my  anger,  and  the  staff  in  their  (the 
Assyrians')  hand   is  my  indignation,  i.  e.  its  instrument.     According  to 
Kimchi,  *tfi  is  merely  a  tts^b  tap^^,  or  particle  of  calling,  by  which   God 
summons  the  Assyrian  to   punish  Israel.    .So   Munster :  O  Assur  (veni  ut 
sis)  virga,  etc.     It  is  also  rendered    O  by  Pagninus,  Montanus,  Forerius. 
Vatablus,  and  Calvin,  who  suggests  however  that  it  may  be  taken  as  an  ex- 
.  pression  of  grief  (alas  /)  on  God's   part,  at  the  necessity  of  punishing  his 
people.     Lowth  translates  it  Ho  !  DeWette  Ha  !     But  the  analogy  of  v.  1 
and  the  subsequent  threatenings  are  decisive  in  favour  of  the  common  ver- 
sion.    A  pronoun  of  the  second  person  is  supplied  after  ^n  by  Clericus  (vae 
vobis  Assyrii),  and  J.  D!  JVJichaelis   (wehe  dir,   Assyrien),  while   DeDieu 
supplies  the  substantive  verb  after  "iiiBS  (Heus  !  Assyria  est  virga,  etc). 
But  it  is  simpler  to  connect  tlie  particle  as  usual  directly  with  the  noun,  as 
in  the  Septuagint  (oval  'AoovQiotg)   and   most  other  versions.     Junius,  Pis- 
cator,  and  the  margin  of  the   English   Bible   give  to  the  second  vav  the 
sense  of  for  or  though,  which. is  needless  and  unauthorized.     The  Vulgate, 
Aben  Ezra,  Luther,  Calvin,  DeDieu,  Vatablus,  and  Clericus,  take  fiOfi  as  a 
demonstrative  equivalent  to  hie,  ille,  ipse,  or  the  like.     Pagninus,  Cocceius, 
Schmidius,  Vitringa,  Rosenmuller,  treat  it  as  a  relative  (the  rod  which),  and 
Gesenius  gives  the  same  sense,  by  supposing  an  ellipsis  of  *>««,  and  making 
xin  the  substitute  or  index  of  the  verb  to  be.     For  trcq,  Seeker  reads  um 
(in  the  day  of  my  wrath),  a  mere  conjecture.     The  preposition  is  omitted 
by  Luther  and  Clericus  (est  manus  eorum).     The  words  D"ns  Kin  are  re- 
jected by  Hitzig  and  Ewald  as  a  gloss,  on  the  ground  that  they  render  the 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X.  187 


two  clauses   inco:  one  describing  Assyria  as  itself  the  rod,  the  other 

putting  a  rod  into  Assyria's  own  hand,  whereas  in  v.  M  Assyria  is  still  rep- 
resented as  the  rod  and  not  rod-bearer.  Hendewerk,  DeWette,  and 
Knobel,  avoid  the  conclusion  by  connecting  "ss  ---  with  the  verb  to  be 
supplied  in  the  second  clause — '  the  rod  of  my  anger  and  the  staff  of  my  in- 
dignation, it  is  in  their  hand.'  But  in  v.  24  (cf.  ch.  9  :  3)  Assyria  re- 
appears as  a  rod-bearer,  and  the  chief  point  and  beauty  of  the  verse  befo'reus 
lies  in  the  alleged  inconsistency  of  representing  the  Assyrian,  by  whose  rod 
the  Israelites  were  smitten,  as  himself  a  mere  rod  in  the  hand  of  God.  Such 
emendations  are  as  puerile  in  taste  as  they  are  inconsistent  with  the  favourite 
German  canon,  that  the  harder  reading  is  presumptively  the  true  one.  Any 
school-boy  can  expound  the  hardest  passage  in  the  classics  by  omitting 
what  he  pleases  on  the  score  of  inconcinnity.  The  disputed  words  are  re- 
tained by  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  DeWette,  Umbreit,  Knobel.  Ac- 
coiding  to  Junius,  Hendewerk,  and  DeWette,  ^st  is  governed  by  r\'^v  (the 
staff  is  in  their  hand  of  my  indignation),  and  Schmidius,  Clericus,  Rosen- 
miiller  and  Gesenius,  give  the  same  sense  by  repeating  M^"a  before  •'est 
(q.  d.  the  staff  in  their  hand  is  the  staff  of  my  indignation).  The  Septua- 
gint  connects  the  last  word  of  this  verse  with  the  next  (x\v  bny^v  fiov 
anooxeXn). 

V.  6.  Upon  (or  against)  an  impious  nation  (i.  e.  Israel,  including 
Ephraim  and  Judah)  will  1  send  him  (the  Assyrian),  and  against  the  peo- 
ple of  my  wrath  (i.  e.  the  people  that  provokes  it  and  deserves  it  and  is  to 
experience  it)  I  will  commission  him  (or  give  him  his  orders),  to  take  spoil 
and  to  seize  prey  (literally  to  spoil  spoil  and  to  prey  prey),  and  to  place  (or 
render)  it  (the  people)  a  trampling  (a  thing  to  be  trodden  under  foot,  a 
common  figure  for  extreme  degradation)  like  the  mire  of  streets.  See  the 
same  comparison  in  ch.  5 :  25  and  Ps.  18  :  43. — According  to  Cocceius  the 
use  of  the  word  n>tt  in  application  to  Israel  implies  that  they  had  now  become 
gentiles  or  heathen.  But  the  word  seems  to  be  simply  used  as  a  poetical 
equivalent  to  e*.  On  the  meaning  of  ^:n,  vide  supra  ch.  9 :  16.  Aben  Ezra, 
I^owth,  Gesenius  and  others,  explain  people  of  my  wrath  as  meaning  simply 
the  people  at  whom  I  am  angry  ;  but  a  stronger  meaning  seems  to  be  re- 
quired by  the  form  of  the  expression  and  the  context.  Cocceius,  with  per- 
verse ingenuity,  refers  the  suffix  in  ^rves  to  D3>,  which  could  not  take  it  in 
construction,  and  translates  the  phrase  populum  excandescentiae  meum,  im- 
plying that  they  were  (or  had  been)  his  people,  but  were  now  the  objects 
Af  his  wrath.  The  Septuagint  changes  the  sense  by  omitting  ^r-nr  (t<x>  fp$ 
law).  The  true  sense  is  not  ill  expressed  in  the  paraphrase  ofForerius, 
populum  quern  duritcr  tractare  decrevi,  Piscator  understands  by  T,zn  *ia  the 
Jews  exclusively,  in  which  he   is  followed  by  Henderson,  who  argues  from 


188  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X. 

vs.  9—11,  that  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  is  regarded  in  this  passage  as 
destroyed  already.  But,  as  Vitringa  had  before  observed,  the  Assyrians  did 
not  reduce  Judah  to  an  extreme  of  desolation,  and  in  Sennacherib's  invasion 
Jerusalem,  though  pre-eminently  guilty,  was  unharmed.  Besides,  the  con- 
nexion between  this  and  the  next  chapter  forbids  the  exclusive  reference  to 
Judah. 

V.  7.  The  Assyrian  is  now  described  as  an  unconscious  instrument  in 
God's  hand,  and  as  entertaining  in  his  own  mind  nothing  but  ambitious  plans 
of  universal  conquest.  And  he  (Assyria  personified,  or  the  king  of  Assyria) 
not  so  will  think  (will  not  imagine  for  what  purpose  he  was  raised  up,  or 
will  not  intend  to  execute  my  will),  and  his  heart  not  so  will  think  (or 
purpose)  ;  for  (on  the  contrary)  to  destroy  (is)  in  his  heart,  and  to  cut 
off  nations  not  a  few,  i.  e.  by  a  litotes  common  in  Hebrew,  very  many  na- 
tions. According  to  Cocceius  tvahfi  «p  xb  (from  n^n  to  resemble)  means 
he  will  not  (or  does  not)  think  as  I  do.  But  the  sense  of  imagining  or  pur- 
posing appears  to  be  fully  justified  by  usage. 

V.  8.  This  verse  introduces  the  proof  and  illustration  of  his  selfishness 
and  pride.  For  he  will  say  (or  giving  it  a  descriptive  form,  he  says)  are  net 
my  princes  altogether  kings,  or  at  the  same  time  kings,  mere  princes  with  re- 
spect to  me,  but  kings  as  to  all  the  world  besides  ?  By  exalting  his  tributary 
princes  or  the  nobles  of  his  court,  he  magnifies  himself  the  more.  The 
oriental  monarchs,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  have  affected  the  title 
of  Great  King  (Isai.  36 :  4.  Hos.  8  :  10),  and  King  of  kings  (Ezek.  26  : 
7.  Dan.  2  :  37),  corresponding  to  the  Greek  fityuloi  ftuadeig,  (tacdeTg  fiaadtm, 
and  the  Persian  sL&JL#Lc«.  This  is  the  more  offensive  because  such 
titles  properly  belong  to  God  alone  (Ps.  95:  3.  Dan.  2:  47.  8:  25. 
Matth.  5:  35). 

V.  9.  Having  boasted  of  his  princes,  he  now  boasts  of  his  achievements 
Is  not  Calno  like  Carchemish  1  Have  they  not  been  equally  subdued  by 
me  ?  Or  is  not  Hamath  like  Arpad  1  Or  is  not  Samaria  like  Damascus  ? 
Similar  boastings  were  uttered  by  Rabshakeh  (ch.  36  :  19,  2CK  37  :  12,  13). 
These  conquests  were  the  more  remarkable  because  so  speedily  achieved, 
and  because  the  Assyrians  had  before  confined  themselves  within  their  own 
limits.  All  the  towns  named  were  further  north  than  Jerusalem,  and  pro- 
bably commanded  the  navigation  of  the  two  great  rivers,  Tigris  and  Eu- 
phrates. Carchemish  was  a  fortified  town  on  an  island  in  the  Euphrate 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Chaboras,  called  by  the  Greeks  Kipyjaior,  and  in  Latin 
Cercusium.  It  had  its  own  king  (Isai.  37  :  13)  and  its  own  gods  (Isai. 
36  :  19),  and  was  taken  by  Tiglath-pileser  (2  Kings  15  :  29).      Calno  was 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 


I 


the  (Ui  siphon  of  the  Greeks,  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Tigris,  opposite  S 
leucia.  It  is  identified  by  Kimchi  with  the  Cafnth  qfGen.  10:  10,  and  by 
Bochart  with  the  Canneh  of  Ezek.  27  :  23.  Hamath  was  a  city  of  Syria, 
on  the  Orontes,  the  mouth  of  which  river,  according  to  Keith  (Land  of  Is- 
rael, ch.  2.  •§>  3),  is  the  entering  into  Hamath,  sometimes  mentioned  as  the 
northern  boundary  of  Canaan  in  its  widest  extent  (Num.  34  :  8.  Josh.  13  : 
5).  It  was  called  by  the  Greeks  Epiphania.  Abulfeda,  the  Arabian  his- 
torian, reigned  there  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  It  is 
now  one  of  the  largest  towns  in  Asiatic  Turkey,  having  about  100,000  in- 
habitants. Arpad,  another  town  of  Syria,  near  Hamath,  with  which  it  is 
several  times  named.  Junius  and  Paulus  regard  it  as  the  name  of  a  region. 
Grotius,  Doderlein  and  others,  confound  it  with  Arvad  in  Phenicia  (Gen. 
10  :  8)  ;  but  none  of  the  ancient  versions  do  so,  and  i  is  not  interchangeable 
with  b.  It  is  mentioned  last  in  Jer.  49:  23,  and  is  probably  no  longer  in 
existence.  According  to  Jerome,  there  were  two  Hamaths,  one  the  same 
with  Epiphania,  the  other  with  Antioch,  the  Hamath  Rabba  of  Amos  6  :  2. 
Vitringa  supposes  the  Hamath  here  mentioned  to  be  not  the  Epiphania  but 
the  Emesa  (or  Emissa)  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers.  The  latest  au- 
thorities are  all  in  favour  of  the  other  explanation.  According  to  Jarchi, 
the  Assyrian  in  this  verse  is  still  boasting  of  his  tributaries — i  as  the  sons  of 
Carchemish  are  princes  and  rulers,  so  are  those  of  Calno  ' — which  is  alto- 
gether arbitrary.  The  Targum,  followed  by  AbenEzra,  Calvin,  and  GilJ. 
refers  the  questions  of  this  verse  to  the  future.  Shall  not  Calno  be  as  Car- 
chemish 1  i.  e.  as  I  have  subdued  Carchemish,  shall  I  not  in  like  manner  subdue 
Calno  ?  But  the  great  majority  of  writers  understand  the  passage  as  explained 
above,  although  they  differ  in  the  form  of  their  translations.  Some  adhere 
strictly  to  the  form  of  the  original  without  supplying  any  thing  (Vulgate. 
Calvin,  Cocceius,  Vitringa).  Some  supply  the  present  of  the  verb  to  be 
(Luther,  Piscator,  Clericus,  Lowth,  Barnes,  Henderson,  Ewald,  Knobel). 
Some  introduce  another  verb — shall  it  not  perish  (Aben  Ezra) — did  it  not 
happen  (ging's  nicht  ?  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Umbreit).  J.  D. 
Michaelis  omits  the  interrogation,  and  the  Peshito  substitutes  behold! — 
xb  ex,  as  usual,  continues  the  interrogative  introduced  by  &6n  (Nord- 
heimer,  $  1090.  4.  a.).  It  is  most  exactly  rendered  or  not  (oder  nicht),  by 
Hendewerk,  Ewald  and  Umbreit — less  exactly,  as  a  simple  interrogative 
without  negation,  by  Luther,  Lowth,  Barnes  and  Henderson — as  a  negative 
interrogation,  but  without  expressing  fix,  by  Hitzig  and  Vitringa — as  a  mere 
disjunctive  (oder)  by  Gesenius. 

V.  10.  As  my  hand  hath  found  (i.  e.  reached  and  seized)  the  idol-ki?ig- 
doms  (worshippers  of  idols) — and  their  images  (anglice,  whose  images  were 
more)  than  (those  of)  Jerusalem  and  Samaria — the  apodosis  of  the  sen- 


190  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 


tence  follows  in  the  next  verse.     Barnes  explains  found  as  meaning  found 
them  helpless  ;  and  J.  H.  Michaelis,  found  strength  to  subdue  them ;    both 
which  are  forced  and  arbitrary.     Gesenius,  Maurer,  TJmbreit,  suppose  it  to 
mean  struck,  as  an  arrow  finds  Ahe  mark ;    but  this  idea   is  rather  implied 
than  expressed,  both  here  and  in  Psalm  21:9.  I  Sam.  23  :   17.     The  ideas 
naturally  suggested  are  those  of  detecting  and  reaching.  The  original  import 
of  V>bx  is  retained  in  translation  by   Cocceius   and   Vitringa   (regna  nihili), 
both  of  whom  however  understand  it  to  mean  idols.     The  singular  form  is 
retained  by  Theodotion  (zov  eldalov),  the  Vulgate  (regna   idoli),  and  Um- 
breit    (des  Gotzen).      Ewald  renders  the  whole  phrase   Go tzen- L'dnder. 
Cocceius  supposes  that  in  using  this  expression,  the  king  of  Assyria  is  made 
to  speak  rather  in  the  person  of  a  Jew  than  in  his  own  (pro  eo  quod  requi- 
rebat  io  nqinov  personae,  substituitur  quod  requirit  Veritas  rci).     Grotius  un- 
derstands him  to  express  contempt  of  these  foreign  gods  as  in  their  nature 
inferior  to  his  own  ;  but  the  reference  is  rather  to  their  having  proved  una- 
ble to  protect  their  votaries.     The  heathen  nations  of  antiquity  do  not  seem 
to  have  denied  the  real  existence  and  divinity  of  one   another's   gods,  but 
merely  to  have  claimed  superior  honours  for  their  own. — Instead  of  the  com- 
parative sense  than,  the  Vulgate  gives  to    ",a  its  local  sense  of  from   (de), 
which  seems  to  mean  that  the  idols  of  the  kingdoms  were  derived  from  Is- 
rael, a  fact  which  Jarchi  does  not  scruple  to  assert,  though  not  only  unsup- 
ported but  directly  contradicted  by  all  history.     Valablus  gives  the  same 
construction  but  refers  the  words,  with  less  improbability,  to  the  inferior  and 
dependent  towns  of  Israel,  as  having  learned  idolatry  from  the  royal  cities. 
On  the  whole,  however,  though  the  sentence  is  at  best  obscure,  the  most 
satisfactory  construction,  both  in  a  grammatical  and  historical  point  of  view, 
is  that  adopted  by  the   great  majority  of  writers,  not  excepting  the  most 
learned  of  the  Rabbins,  David  Kimchi,  and  which  takes  )v  as   a  particle  of 
comparison.     Kimchi  and  Calvin  govern   Samaria  and  Jerusalem  directly 
by  the  preposition ;    most  other  writers  repeat  images  before  them.     The 
point  of  the  comparison  is  not  expressed  in  the  original ;  those  versions  are 
too  definite  which  render  it  more  numerous,  more  precious,  or  more  power- 
ful, as  all  these  particulars  may  be  included.     The  second  clause  is  paren- 
thetical and  disturbs  the  structure  of  the  sentence  by  leaving  the  comparison, 
with  which  it  opens,  incomplete,  although  the  remainder  is  sufficiently  im- 
plied in  the  parenthesis  itself.     As  my  hand  has  found  the  idol-kingdoms 
[so  shall  it  find  Samaria  and  Jerusalem.']     This,  which  would  seem  to  be 
the  natural  apodosis,  is  formally  excluded  but  substantially  supplied  by  the 
last  clause  of  the  sentence  as  it  stands.     As  if  he  had  said,  '  Since  my  hand 
has  found  the  idol-kingdoms  whose  images  exceeded  those  of  Jerusalem  and 
Samaria,  much  more  shall  it  find  Jerusalem  and  Samaria  themselves.'     But 
instead  of  a  protasis  without  an  apodosis,  Gesenius  and  Maurer  describe  the 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.    X.  191 

sentence  as  a  double  protasis  with  one  apodosis.     ■  As  my  hand  has  found 
the  idol-kingdoms  (whose  images  exceeded  those  of  Jerusalem  and  Samaria), 

and  as  I  have  done  to  Samaria  itself,  shall  I  not,  etc.'     This  supposes  Sa- 
maria to  hr  regarded,  even  in  v.  10,  as  already  conquered. 

V.  1 1 .  Shall  I  not,  as  I  have  done  to  Samaria  and  to  her  idols,  so  do 
to  Jcrusuh  in  and  her  gods  ?  The  interrogative  particle,  which  properly  he- 
longs  to  the  second  verb,  is  placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  in  order 
to  give  prominence  to  its  interrogative  form,  which  involves  an  affirmation 
of  the  strongest  kind.  This  effect  is  wholly  neutralized  by  rendering  M&n 
much  more  (Piscator),  furthermore  (Hendewerk),  yes  (Ewald),  or  behold 
(Gesenius,  Hitzig).  Because  an  interrogative  construction  is  employed  in 
Hebrew  where  in  other  tongues  a  simple  exclamation  would  be  used,  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  one  can  be  substituted  for  the  other  without  doing  violence 
to  the  usage  and  genius  of  the  language.  The  facts  alleged  by  Gesenius 
(in  his  Thesaurus  s.  v.),  that  B&fi,  as  used  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  is  generally 
changed  in  Chronicles  to  nsn,  and  that  the  Septuagint  frequently  translates 
the  former  tdov,  may  prove  a  change  of  idiomatic  usage,  but  cannot  change 
the  meaning  of  xbn  itself,  or  make  that  meaning  less  acceptable  to  every  un- 
sophisticated taste  than  the  arbitrary  substitute  proposed.  Still  more  objec- 
tionable is  the  omission  of  x^n  altogether.  Luther,  Vitringa,  and  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  give  the  verb  in  this  interrogation  a  subjunctive  form, — may,  might, 
could,  or  should  I  not  do  2  It  is  best  however  to  retain  the  simple  future, 
as  most  writers  do. — The  English  Version  and  some  others  use  the  same 
word  to  translate  rrt^Va  and  mass,  which  are  in  fact  synonymous,  although 
the  latter  signifies  originally  trouble,  sorrow,  with  reference  perhaps  to  the 
ultimate  effect  of  image  worship  on  the  worshippers.  The  two  words  are 
differently  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  (^etQonotrjioig,  eidaXoig),  the  Vulgate 
(idolis.  simulacris),  the  Targum,  Junius,  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Lowth 
(idols,  images). 

V.  12.  To  the  boastful  speech  of  the  Assyrian  succeeds  a  prediction  of 
his  fate.  Although  he  had  been  suffered  to  proceed  so  far,  and  would  be 
suffered  to  proceed  still  further,  in  the  work  of  subjugation,  till  he  reached 
the  very  verge  of  Zion  and  the  portals  of  Jerusalem,  God  had  determined 
that  the  work  should  go  no  further,  but  be  there  cut  short  by  the  infliction  of 
a  signal  vengeance  on  the  selfishness  and  pride  of  the  invader.  And  it  shall 
be  (i.  e.  the  end  of  all  this  glorying  shall  be)  that  the  Lord  will  cut  his 
work  short  at  Mount  Zion  and  at  Jerusalem.  (Yes,  even  there)  will  1 
visit  (i.  e.  manifest  my  presence  for  the  purpose  of  inflicting  punishment)  on 
the  fruit  (or  outward  exhibition)  of  the  greatness  of  heart  (i.  e.  arrogance 
and  pride)  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  and  on  the  ostentation  (or  display)  of 


192 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X 


his  loftiness  of  eyes  (or  looks,   a  common   scriptural   expression  for  great 
haughtiness).     His    work  may    mean   the  Assyrian's   work   of   conquest, 
or  the  Lord's  own  work  of  punishment,  in  reference  either  to  Assyria  or  Is- 
rael.    Either  of  these  senses   may   be   preferred  without   effect   upon   the 
meaning  of  the  sentence.     By  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army,  God 
may  be  said  to  have  cut  short  the  work  of  that  invader,  or  to  have  cut  short 
his  own  work  by  accomplishing  his  purpose  of  destruction,  or  to  have  cut 
short  his  own  work  of  punishing  his  people,  by  relieving  them  from  danger. 
The  last  of  these  senses  may,  however,  be  retained,  and  yet  the  general 
meaning  of  the  first  clause  wholly  altered,  as  is  actually  done  by  nearly  all 
interpreters,  who  take  *a  in  the  sense  of  when,  and  read  the  clause  as  it  is 
rendered  in  the  English  Bible.     It  shall  come  to  pass,  when  the  Lord  hath 
performed  his  whole  work  on  Mount  Zion  and  in   Jerasalem,  that  I  will 
punish,  etc.  i.  e.  the  instrument  of  punishment  shall   be  destroyed  as  soon 
as  it  has  done  its  work.     According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  the  com- 
pletion of  God's  work  upon  Mount  Zion  is  a  previous  condition  of  his  pun- 
ishing Assyria  ;  according  to  the  other,  the  completion  and  the  punishment 
are  one  and  the  same  thing.     The  former  interpretation  is  that  unanimously 
'  given    by    all  writers    known    to  me,  excepting    Hitzig,  who    adopts    a 
singular  construction  of  his  own,  disregarding  the  accents  and  connecting  in 
Mount  Zion  and  Jerusalem  with  the  second  clause.     He  gives  to  ^s  how- 
ever like  the  rest  its  more  unfrequent  sense  of  when,  whereas  the  first  inter- 
pretation above  stated  makes  it  as  usual  equivalent  to  on.     The  principal 
objection  to  this  new  construction,  next  to  the  great  weight  of  authority.against 
it,  is  the  meaning  which  it  puts  upon  the  preposition  before  Zion  and  Jeru- 
salem.    This,  it  is  said,  can  only  mean  within  the  walls,  and  cannot  there- 
fore have  respect  to  the  destruction  of  the  host  without.  But  the  preposition 
sometimes    denotes    mere    proximity,   even   when '  prefixed  to  nouns    de- 
noting place,  e.  g.   "psa  at  the  fountain,  I   Sam.  29:   1,  laa  ihaa  by  the 
river  of  Chebar,  Ezek.  10 :    15,  and  a*is  "Vises  at  the  rock  Oreb,  in  this  very 
chapter,  v.  26.     (See  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,   torn.    1.  p.   172.)      To  the 
common  explanation  it  may  be  objected  that  2^ni  does  not  mean  simply  to 
finish,  but  to  finish  abruptly  or  cut  short  (Isai.  38:   12.  Job  6:  9),  which 
is  certainly  not  so  appropriate  to  the  deliberate  execution  of  a  purpose  as  to 
its  sudden  interruption.     It  is  true  that  according  to  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  and 
Gesenius  (in  Thesauro),  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  weaver's  cutting  out  the 
web  when  it  is  finished ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  ground  for  this 
assertion.     J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Gesenius  translate  ^pBK  as  a  third  person, 
which  removes  the  appearance  of  grammatical  irregularity,  but  only  by  the 
sacrifice  of  strict  adherence  to  the  form  of  the  original,  which,  when  attain- 
able, adds  greatly  to  the  value  of  a  version,  both  in  point  of  utility  and  taste. 
In  this  case  the  enallage  is  highly  emphatic — <  the  Lord  will  cut  short' — 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.    X.  19& 

yes  '  I  will  visit.'  There  is  the  same  objection  to  the  gratuitous  omission  of 
mrr,  by  Luther,  Clericus,  Pbcatof,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Henderson 
and  Ewald.  That  phrase  is  not  an  idiomatic  pleonasm,  or  intended  to  de- 
termine the  futurity  of  what  directly  follows — but  an  emphatic  clause  con- 
necting this  verse  with  the  one  before  it — q.  d. :  such  are  the  boasts  and 
such  the  expectations  of  Assyria,  but  it  shall  be,  i.  e.  the  end  shall  be,  the 
end  of  all  this  glorying  and  of  all  these  threats  shall  be,  that  the  Lord  will 
cut  short,  etc.  J.  D.  Michaelis  is  singular  in  giving  to  the  verb  ipcst  the 
sense  of  looking  down  upon  (wird  er  herabblicken).  Here,  as  in  ch.  9  :  8, 
greatness  of  heart  is  a  temper  opposite  to  that  of  the  lowly  in  heart  and  the 
poor  in  spirit,  who  are  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  peculiarly 
acceptable  to  God.  (Matt.  5 :  3.  1 1  :  29.)  According  to  Henderson  there 
is  an  implied  antithesis  between  the  looks  considered  as  the  leaves  and  the 
actions  as  the  fruit  of  the  same  tree,  all  which  is  more  ingenious  than  natu- 
ral. Gesenius  and  Maurer  seem  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  rrutsn  to  mere 
ostentation  and  parade  ;  but  it  is  best  to  take  it  in  a  wider  sense,  as  including 
all  the  outward  manifestations  of  an  arrogant  spirit. 

V.  13.  The  Assyrian  is  again  introduced  as  speaking,  and  as  arrogating 
to  himself  the  two  most  necessary  qualities  of  a  successful  ruler,  to  wit,  en- 
ergy and  wisdom,  military  prowess  and  political  sagacity.  The  last  clause 
gives  the  proofs  of  the  assertion  in  the  first,  and  mentions  three  things  which 
the  boaster  had  disposed  of  at  his  pleasure,  political  arrangements,  money, 
and  men.  For  he  saith  (in  heart  and  life,  if  not" in  words)  by  the  strength 
of  my  (own)  hand  I  have  done  (all  this),  and  by  my  (own)  zvisdom,  for  I 
am  wise  (as  well  as  strong),  and  (in  the  exercise  of  these  two  attributes) 
I  remove  the  bounds  of  the  nations,  and  rob  their  hoards,  and  bring  down, 
like  a  mighty  man  (as  I  am),  the  inhabitants.  J.  H.  Michaelis  takes  T'l'r 
in  the  sense  of  making  gain  or  profit,  as  in  Ez.  28 :  4  ;  but  it  is  better  to 
translate  it  J  have  done,  and  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  series  of  suc- 
cesses just  before  enumerated. — Cocceius  and  Vitringa  make  the  next  clause 
mean,  it  is  through  my  wisdom  that  I  have  acted  prudently,  a  construction 
far  inferior,  in  simplicity  and  strength,  to  the  obvious  and  common  one  pro- 
posed above.  The  removing  of  the  bounds  appears  to  be  explained  in  the 
Targum  as  descriptive  of  his  conquering  progress  from  one  province  to 
another  (xs'HEb  M3*t8t)  ;  but  the  true  sense  is  the  more  specific  one  of  de- 
stroying the  distinctions  between  nations  by  incorporation  in  a  single  empire. 
si-nni-nns  is  variously  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  (tip  Inyvv  avzdor),  Junius 
(instructissima  loca  eorum),  and  Cocceius  (et  fixa  eorum),  but  according  to 
its  etymology  denotes  things  laid  up  or  kept  in  store  for  future  use  ;  hence 
treasures,  with  particular  reference  to  their  being  hoarded.  The  Keri  1n33 
for  TOH3  is  unnecessary,  as  the  5  in  the  latter  is  a  caph  vcritatis,  denoting 

13 


194  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X. 


comparison,  not  with  something  wholly  different,  but  with  the  class  to  which 
the  thing  itself  belongs.  Thus  like  a  mighty  man  does  not  imply  that  the 
person  spoken  of  was  not  of  that  description,  but  that  he  was — <  like  a 
mighty  man  or  hero  as  I  am.'  As  the  primary  meaning  of  2W  is  to  sit, 
some  writers  explain  b^att^  as  meaning  those  who  sit  on  high  (Vulgate,  J. 
D.  Michaelis)  or  on  thrones  (Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  Um- 
breit,  Knobel),  and  '•nwtn  in  the  sense  of  displacing  or  dethroning.  There 
is  no  necessity,  however,  for  departing  from  the  less  poetical  but  more 
familiar  sense,  inhabitants  and  bringing  down,  i.  e.  subduing. 

V.  14.  The  rapidity  and  ease  of  the  Assyrian  conquests  is  expressed  by 
a  natural  and  beautiful  comparison.  In  seizing  on  the  riches  of  the  nations, 
the  conqueror  had  encountered  no  more  difficulty  than  if  he  had  been  merely 
taking  eggs  from  a  forsaken  nest,  without  even  the  impotent  resistance  which 
the  bird,  if  present,  might  have  offered,  by  its  cries  and  by  the  flapping  of 
its  wings.  My  hand  has  found  (i.  e.  reached  and  seized)  the  strength  (or 
more  specifically,  the  pecuniary  strength,  the  wealth)  of  the  nations,  and 
like  the  gathering  of  (or  as  one  gathers)  eggs  forsaken,  so  have  I  gathered 
all  the  earth  (i.  e.  all  its  inhabitants  and  their  possessions)  and  there  was 
none  that  moved  a  wing,  or  opened  a  mouth,  or  chirped. — The  present 
form,  which  Hendewerk  adopts  throughout  the  verse,  is  equally  grammatical, 
but  less  in  keeping  with  the  context,  which  seems  to  represent  the  speaker 
as  describing  not  his  habits  but  his  past  exploits.  Clericus  renders  ^n  by 
moenia,  as  being  the  strength  or  defences  of  a  besieged  city,  and  the  Vulgate 
takes  it  as  an  abstract  meaning  strength  itself,  which  is  its  primary  import ; 
but  interpreters  are  generally  agreed  in  giving  it  the  more  specific  sense  of 
wealth,  or  strength  derived  from  property,  an  idea  which  seems  to  be  more 
fully  expressed  by  our  word  substance.  The  meaning  of  b'tos  is  here  again 
obscured  in  the  English  Version  by  the  use  of  the  singular  form  people,  for 
which  Lowth  has  substituted  peoples,  thereby  conveying  the  true  sense  of 
the  original,  but  at  the  same  time  violating  the  prevalent  usage  of  the  Eng- 
lish language.  Hitzig  gives  to  h  xs^  the  sense  of  reaching  after  ;  but  ac- 
cording to  usage  and  the  common  judgment  of  interpreters,  the  particle  is 
here  a  mere  connective  of  the  verb  and  object.  The  infinitive  construction 
^0X3  is  expressed  in  the  passive  form  by  the  Vulgate  (sicut  colliguntur), 
Calvin,  Clericus,  and  Vitringa,  and  as  a  verb  of  the  first  person  by  Junius 
(quasi  reciperem)  and  Cocceius  (quasi  auferrem),  but  as  an  indefinite  con- 
struction by  Luther  (wie  man  aufrafft)  and  most  modern  writers.  The 
pronoun  before  Tia&x  is  omitted  in  some  versions  as  unnecessary  to  the 
sense,  but  it  is  for  that  very  reason  emphatic  and  adds  to  the  boastful  tone 
of  the  Assyrian's  language.  Fiirst  and  Ewald  follow  some  of  the  Rabbins 
in  making  ^3,  which  is  elsewhere  intransitive,  agree  with  Spa  (flatternden 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   X.  193 

Flugels),  which  i>  itself  construed  adverbially  by  Calvin  (qui  abigeret  ala) 
and  Cocecius  (divngans  ala).  The  construction  of  EptHUa  as  a  gerund  by 
Clericus  (ad  pipit  adum)  and  Gesenius  (sum  Gezirp)  is  a  needless  departure 
from  the  form  of  the  original.     The  word  peeped  (pipio)  used  in  the  English 

version  is  DOt  only  obsolete  but  liable  to  be  confounded  with  another  of  like 
form  from  another  root.  (Sec  Richardson's  English  Dictionary,  vol.  I.  p. 
1433.)  The  terms  of  the  last  clause  may  be  understood  as  having  refer- 
ence to  young  birds  ;  but  in  that  case  there  are  two  distinct  comparisons 
confusedly  mingled  in  one  sentence.  In  either  case  the  language  is  designed 
to  be  descriptive  of  entire  non-resistance'  to  the  progress  of  the  Assyrian 
conquests,  and  although  designedly  exaggerated  in  expression,  agrees  well 
with  the  historical  statements,  not  only  of  the  Scriptures,  but  of  Ctesias,  Be- 
rosus,  Herodotus,  Diodorus,  Justin,  and  Trogus. 

V.  15.  Yet  in  all   this  the  Assyrian  was  but  an   instrument  in  God's 
hand,  and  his  proud  self-confidence  is  therefore  as  absurd  as  if  an  axe  or  a 
saw  or   a  rod  or  a  staff  should  exalt  itself  above  the  person  wielding  it. 
Shall  the  axe  glorify  itself  above  the  (person)  hewing  with  it  1      Or  shall 
the  saw  magnify  itself  above   the    (person)  handling  it  ?     (This  is  indeed) 
like  a  rod's  wielding  those  who  wield  it,  like   a  staff's  lifting  (that  which 
is)  no  wood  (viz.  a  man).     The  idea  is  not  merely  that  of  boastful  opposi- 
tion but  of  preposterous  inversion   of  the   true  relation  between  agent  and 
instrument,  between  mind  and  matter. — The  potential  form  may  or  can  the 
axe  (Luther,  Clericus,  J.  D.  Michaelis),  and  the  present  form  does  the  axe 
(Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  DeWette,  Ewald),  although   not  incorrect, 
are  less  emphatic  than  the  future  proper,  shall  the  axe  glorify  itself?  i.  e. 
shall  it  be  suffered  so  to  do  ?     Would  not   such    assumption,  if  it  were 
possible,  be  intolerable  ?     Barnes  corrects  the  common  version  by  omitting 
the  reflexive  pronoun  after  boast ;  but  nxsn^  does  not  simply  mean  to  use 
boastful  language,  but  by  boasting   to   exalt  one's  self  in  comparison  with 
others.    (Judges  7  :  2.)     The  preposition  bs  therefore  does  not  mean  merely 
in  the  presence  of  (Hitzig),  nor  even   against  (English  Bible),  but  should 
have  its   proper  sense  of  over  or  above.     Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Henderson 
omit  the  or  before  the  second  question,  perhaps  because  the  English  Bible 
gives  it  in  italics ;  but  the  Hebrew  word  has  often  a  disjunctive  meaning,  when 
preceded  in  construction  by  the  common  interrogative  particle.     A:  figura- 
tive sense  is  put  upon  b^arn  by  Luther  (trotzen),  Gesenius  (briistet),  and  the 
later  German  writers  ;  but  the  literal  version  magnify  itself  is  perfectly  in- 
telligible and  retains  the  precise  form  of  the  original.     cpsn  is  variously  ren- 
dered draw  (Septuagint,  Vulgate),  shake  (Calvin),  guide  (Cocceius),  move 
(Clericus),  etc.     The  essential  idea  is  that  of  motion,  determined  and  quali- 
fied by  the  nature  of  the  thing  moved.     The  Hebrew  verb  is  specially  ap- 


196  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 

propriated  to  denote  the  handling  or  wielding  of  a  tool  or  implement  (Deut. 
23  :  25.  27 :  5.  Ex.  20  :  25).  Piscator,  Gataker,  and  others,  take  the  a 
before  the  verbs  of  the  last  clause  as  a  specification  of  time — when  one 
shakes  a  rod  or  when  a  staff  is  lifted  up — but  this  construction,  al- 
though not  ungrammatical,  introduces  several  very  harsh  ellipses.  A  writer 
quoted  by  Vatablus  takes  the  double  3  as  the  sign  of  a  comparison,  as — so, 
but  this  would  be  comparing  a  thing  merely  with  itself.  Most  interpreters 
follow  the  Septuagint  version  in  rendering  the  particle  as  if.  This  is 
no  doubt  the  sense,  but  the  precise  construction  is  like  the  lifting  of 
a  staff,  not  in  the  passive  sense  of  being  lifted  (wq  av  rig  ccQrj  Qcifidoi'),  but 
in  the  active  one  of  lifting  something  else,  like  a  rod's  lifting  those  who  lift 
it.  The  construction  which  makes  rx  a  preposition  meaning  in  the  power 
of,  dependent  on,  is  arbitrary  in  itself  and  does  not  yield  so  good  a  sense.  The 
Vulgate,  the  Peshito,  and  the  English  Version,  give  d*nn  a  reflexive  sense, 
and  either  read  Vs  for  rx,  or  take  the  latter  in  the  sense  of  against,  as 
Calvin  and  Piscator  do.  The  margin  of  the  English  Bible  gives  another 
version,  which  is  that  of  Junius  and  Cocceius,  and  the  one  now  commonly 
adopted  as  the  simplest  and  most  natural. — Gesenius,  Hitzig,  DeWette, 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel,  make  *Wro  a  pluralis  majestaticus  designed  to 
enhance  the  contrast  between  mind  and  matter.  It  is  much  more  natural, 
however,  to  explain  it  as  a  plural  proper,  as  is  done  by  Maurer,  Hende- 
werk,  and  Henderson. — As  examples  of  misplaced  ingenuity  I  add,  that 
J.  D.  Michaelis  (in  his  Notes  for  the  Unlearned)  explains  dniu  as  the  stock 
or  handle  in  distinction  from  the  iron  of  the  axe  or  saw,  and  that  DeDieu 
proposes  to  take  n^"\ti  as  the  plural  of  *fci  a  mountain — '  as  if  the  staff  were 
mountains,  not  a  piece  of  wood  ' — a  construction  which  is  not  only  forced, 
but  inconsistent  with  the  strict  correspondence  of  CjWS  and  d^na.  The 
same  objection  lies  against  Forerius's  construction  of  the  last  clause — '  as  if 
the  lifting  of  a  staff  (were)  not  (the  lifting  of)  apiece  of  wood.' — Junius, 
Cocceius,  and  most  later  writers,  understand  yftnkh  as  a  peculiar  idiomatic 
compound  (like  fcp&  and  o^»V,  Deut.  32 :  21,l6*^r»i  and  OTaraS  Isai.  31:8, 
comp.  Jer.  5:  7),  meaning  that  which  is  very  far  from  being  wood,  of  an  oppo- 
site nature  to  wood,  i.  e.  according  to  Cocceius  and  Henderson,  God  himself, 
but  more  correctly  man,  since  the  case  supposed  is  that  of  a  man  brandishing 
a  rod  or  staff,  the  relation  between  them  being  merely  used  to  illustrate  that 
between  Jehovah  and  Assyria  considered  as  his  instrument.  The  last 
clause  of  this  verse  has  not  only  been  very  variously  explained  by  modern 
writers,  but  given  great  difficulty  to  the  old  translators,  as  appears  from  the 
inconsistent  and  unmeaning  versions  of  it. 

V.  16.   Therefore  (on  account  of  this  impious  self-confidence)  the  Lord, 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  will  send  upon  his  fat  ones  leanness,  and  under  his  glory 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X,  191 

shall  hum  a  burning  like  the  burning  of  lire.  The  accumulation  of  divine 
names  calls  attention  to  the  source  of  the  threatened  evil,  and  reminds  the 
Assyrian  that  Jehovah  is  the  only  rightful  Sovereign  and  the  God  of  Battles. 
This  combination  occurs  now  here  else,  and  even  here  above  fifty  manu- 
scripts and  twelve  printed  editions  read  mm  for  Wi,  and  thereby  assimilate 
the  form  of  expression  to  that  used  in  ch.  1:  24.  3:  1.  10:  33.  19:  5. 
This  emendation  is  approved  by  Lowth,  Ewald,  and  Henderson,  who  says 
that  "  in  consequence  of  Jewish  superstition,  the  divine  name  has  been  tam- 
pered with  by  some  copyist."  It  is  much  more  probable,  however,  that  an 
unusual  form  was  exchanged  for  a  common  one  in  a  few  copies,  than  that 
Jewish  superstition  tampered  with  the  divine  name  in  a  single  place,  and 
left  it  untouched  in  at  least  four  others. — Gesenius  and  DeWette  use  the 
present  form  sends  ;  but  in  a  case  of  threatening,  the  future  proper  is  far 
more  appropriate.  This  particular  form  of  the  Hebrew  verb  is  often  used 
with  the  same  preposition  to  denote  the  infliction  of  penal  sufferings.  The 
best  translation,  therefore,  is  not  send  among  but  send  upon,  implying  the 
action  of  a  higher  power  (compare  Ezek.  7 :  3  and  5:7).  Hitzig  regards 
■pyova  as  an  abstract  meaning  fatnesses  or  fatness,  and  Cocceius,  Vitringa, 
and  J.  H.  Michaelis  translate  it  by  a  plural  neuter  (pinguia)  meaning  fat 
things  or  parts ;  Ewald  more  explicitly,  his  fat  limbs,  which  supposes  an 
allusion  to  a  body.  Most  interpreters,  however,  understand  it  as  an  epithet 
of  persons  (fat  ones),  as  in  Ps.  78:  31,  viz.  the  Assyrian  warriors  or  their 
chiefs,  so  called  as  being  stout  and  lusty.  The  sending  of  leanness  upon 
them  seems  to  be  a  figure  for  the  reduction  of  their  strength,  with  or  without 
allusion  to  the  health  of  individuals.  Some  suppose  an  exclusive  reference 
to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  others  a  more  general  one  to  the  de- 
cline of  the  Assyrian  power.  Both  are  probably  included,  the  first  as  one 
of  the  most  striking  indications  of  the  last. — By  glory  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand the  splendid  dress  of  the  Assyrian  soldiers  (Jarchi),  nor  the  army  (Vi- 
tringa), nor  the  great  men  of  the  army  or  the  empire  (Lowth),  nor  the  glory- 
ing or  boasting  of  the  king  (Kimchi),  but  magnificence  and  greatness  in  the 
general,  civil  and  military,  moral  and  material.  The  preposition  rnn  may 
either  mean  instead  of,  in  exchange  for  (Peshito),  or  in  the  place  of,  i.  e. 
in  the  place  occupied  by  (Junius),  or  literally  under,  which  is  probably  the 
true  sense,  as  it  agrees  best  with  the  figure  of  a  fire,  which  is  then  described 
as  kindled  at  the  bottom  of  the  splendid  fabric,  with  a  view  to  its  more  com- 
plete destruction — Luther,  Calvin,  the  English  Version  and  some  others, 
make  "ip"1  a  transitive  verb  meaning  to  kindle  and  agreeing  with  Jehovah,  or 
the  king  of  Assyria  ;  but  in  all  the  other  places  where  it  occurs  it  is  intran- 
sitive, and  is  so  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  (ardebit)  and  the  recent  writers, 
agreeing  with  "ip"1,  which  is  not  here  an  infinitive,  though  so  explained  by  Coc- 
ceius (ardebit  ardendo),  but  a  noun.     Cocceius  is  singular  in  supposing  that 


198  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X. 

this  last  clause  is  descriptive  of  the  rage  and  spite  excited  in  Sennacherib 
by  his  first  repulse  from  Judah.  Other  interpreters  regard  it  as  descriptive 
of  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  as  caused  by  a  burning  disease  or 
pestilential  fever  (Junius,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  J.  D.  Michaelis) — others  more 
naturally  as  a  lively  figure  for  the  suddenness,  completeness,  and  rapidity 
of  the  destruction,  without  direct  allusion  to  the  means  or  cause  (Calvin, 
Clericus,  Vitringa,  Rosenmuller,  Barnes,  Henderson).  Gesenius,  who  ex- 
cludes any  special  reference  to  Sennacherib's  army,  understands  by  the  fire 
here  described  the  flames  of  war  in  general. 

V.  1 7.  And  the  Light  of  Israel  shall  be  for  a  fire  (i.  e.  shall  become 
one,  or  shall  act  as  one),  and  his  Holy  One  for  aflame,  and  it  shall  burn 
and  devour  his  (the  Assyrian's)  thorns  and  briers  in  one  day  (i.  e.  in  a  very 
short  time.) — lis  always  denotes  light,  literal  or  figurative.  In  the  places 
cited  by  Barnes  (ch.  44  :  16.  47  :  14.  Ezek.  5:  2),  the  idea  of  fire  is  de- 
noted by  a  cognate  but  distinct  form  (^x).  According  to  Jarchi,  the 
Light  of  Israel  is  the  Law  of  God,  while  another  rabbinical  tradition  applies 
it  to  Hezekiah.  It  is  no  doubt  intended  as  an  epithet  of  God  himself,  so 
called  because  he  enlightened  Israel  by  his  Word  and  Spirit,  and  cheered  them 
by  the  light  of  his  countenance.  There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  pillar  of 
cloud,  and  some  think  to  the  angel  of  Go^'s  presence  who  was  in  it.  The 
Vulgate  even  renders  psb  in  igne  which  is  wholly  unauthorized.  There 
seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  supposing  with  Vitringa  that  the  Pro- 
phet alludes  to  the  worship  of  Light  or  the  God  of  Light  among  the  hea- 
then under  the  names  "Qqoq,  Horus,  probably  derived  from  lis.  There 
seems  to  be  an  antithesis  between  light  and  fire.  He  who  was  a  light 
to  Israel  was  a  fire  to  Assyria.  Some  of  the  early  Jews  read  WHp  as 
a  plural,  meaning  his  saints,  i.  e,  the  pious  Jews  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah. 
The  thorns  and  the  briers  are  explained  by  Jarchi  as  a  figure  for  the  chiefs 
of  the  Assyrians — by  Lowth,  Ewald,  Umbreit  and  others,  for  the  common 
soldiers  as  distinguished  from  the  officers  and  princes,  the  forest-trees  of  the 
ensuing  context — but  by  most  interpreters,  with  more  probability,  as  a  figure 
for  the  whole  body,  either  in  allusion  to  their  pointed  weapons  (Gesenius, 
Henderson),  or  to  their  malice  and  vexation  of  the  Jews  (Kimchi,  Grotius, 
Hitzig),  or  to  their  combustible  nature  and  fitness  for  the  fire  (Clericus, 
Barnes).  Vitringa  supposes  a  threefold  allusion  to  their  number  and  con- 
fusion as  a  great  mixed  multitude,  their  mischievous  hostility,  and  their  im- 
pending doom.  Here  as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  fire  is  mentioned  as  a  rapid 
and  powerful  consuming  agent,  without  express  allusion  to  the  manner  or 
the  means  of  the  destruction  threatened. 

V.  18.  And  the  glory  (i.  e.  beauty)  of  his  (the  Assyrian's)  forest  and 
his  fruitful  field,  from  soul  to  body  (i.  e,  totally),  will  he  (the  Lord)  con~ 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   X  199 

sume,  and  it  shall  be  like  the  waiting  away  of  a  sick  man. — Clericufl  reads 
their  forest,  but  the  reference  is  not  so  much  to  the  Assyrians  collectively  as 
to  the  king  who  was  their  chief  and  representative.  By  h is  forest  some 
writers  understand  kit  host  collectively,  his  individual  soldiers  or  their  arms 
being  the  trees  which  composed  it ;  others,  the  chief  men  as  distinguished 
from  the  multitude,  the  thorns  and  briers  of  the  verse  preceding. — The  Vul- 
gate, Clericus,  Rosenmuller  and  Augusti,  take  iVe*o  as  a  propername  (A/* 
Carmel),  the  mountain  or  mountains  of  that  name  being  noted  for  fertility. 
The  name,  however,  is  itself  significant,  being  derived  by  some  of  the  older 
writers  from  13  a  pasture,  and  xbv  full  (Vitringa)  or  Via  to  cut  (Bochart) 
— by  others  from  ana  a  vineyard  and  bx  the  name  of  God,  a  vineyard  of 
God,  i.  e.  a  choice  or  fruitful  vineyard  (Lowth,  Lee) — but  by  most  of  the 
recent  lexicographers  from  nia  a  vineyard,  with  the  addition  of  ^,  making  it 
diminutive  (Gesenius,  Winer,  Furst).  In  its  primary  import  it  may  be  ap- 
plied to  any  highly  cultivated  or  productive  spot,  a  garden,  vineyard,  or- 
chard, or  the  like,  and  its  appropriation  as  a  proper  name  is  altogether  sec- 
ondary. Henderson  renders  it  plantation.  Here  it  may  either  be  equiva- 
lent and  parallel  to  forest,  in  which  case  it  would  signify  a  park  stocked 
with  choice  and  noble  trees  (Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  DeWette) — or 
it  may  be  in  antithesis  to  forest,  and  denote  a  cleared  and  cultivated  field 
(Ewald,  Umbreit,  etc.).  Kimchi  would  understand  by  forest  the  chief 
men,  and  by  fruitful  field  their  wealth  and  especially  their  military  stores. 
Vitringa  thinks  it  possible  that  the  forest  is  Nineveh  the  royal  city,  the 
fruitful  field  the  country  at  large,  and  the  glory  of  both  the  wealth  and 
magnificence  of  the  whole  empire,  as  concentrated  and  displayed  in  Sennach- 
erib's army.  The  obvious  and  true  interpretation  is,  that  the  Prophet  meant 
to  represent  the  greatness  of  Assyria  under  figures  borrowed  from  the  vege- 
table world,  and  for  that  purpose  uses  terms  descriptive  of  the  most  impres- 
sive aspects  under  which  a  fruitful  land  presents  itself,  forests  and  harvest- 
fields,  the  two  together  making  a  complete  picture,  without  the  necessity  of 
giving  to  each  part  a  distinctive  import.  The  forest  and  the  fruitful  field, 
here  applied  to  Assyria,  are  applied  by  Sennacherib  himself  to  Israel  (ch. 
37  :  24).  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  construe  foa  as  an  absolute  nomina- 
tive— and  as  to  the  glory — but  it  is  rather  governed  by  the  verb  in  the 
next  clause. — As  the  terms  soul  and  flesh  are  strictly  inapplicable  to  the 
trees  and  fields,  we  must  either  suppose  that  the  Prophet  here  discards  his 
metaphor,  and  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  Assyrians  as  men,  or  that  the  phrase 
is  a  proverbial  one,  meaning  body  and  sou],  i.  e.  altogether,  and  is  here  ap- 
plied without  regard  to  the  primary  import  of  the  terms,  or  their  agreement 
with  the  foregoing  figures.  Either  of  these  explanations  is  better  than  to 
understand  the  clause  with  Vatablus,  as  meaning  that  the  fire  would  not 
only  take  away  the  lives  (em)  of  the  Assyrians,  but  consume  their  bodies 


200 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X. 


(ntts) — or  with  the  Dutch  Annotators,  that  the  destruction  would  extend 
both  to  men  ('J3d)  and  to  beasts  ("1^2) — or  with  Musculus,  that  the  progress 
of  the  fatal  stroke  would  be  not  ab  extra  but  ab  intra,  which  J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis  regards  as  an  exact  description  of  the  plague. — In  the  English  Ver- 
sion, the  construction  is  continued  from  the  preceding  verse,  as  if  r&ai  and 
the  verbs  of  that  verse  had  a  common  subject.  But  as  those  verbs  were 
feminine  to  agree  with  mnb,  so  this  is  masculine  to  agree  with  Jehovah,  or 
the  Light  of  Israel,  or  the  Angel  of  his  Presence.  Henderson  restores  the 
Hebrew  collocation,  but  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb  consume.  Lowth 
and  Barnes"  more  correctly  supply  he.  This  verb  is  rendered  by  a  passive 
or  a  neuter  in  the  Vulgate,  Luther,  and  Augusti,  as  if  it  were  the  Kal  and 
not  the  Piel.  ■  The  same  construction  is  ascribed  to  the  Peshito  in  the  Latin 
version  of  the  London  Polyglott ;  but  as  the  Syriac  verb  (^  L>  i)  has  both  an 
active  and  a  neuter  sense,  and  as  the  rest  of  the  clause  is  in  exact  accord- 
ance with  the  Hebrew  text,  this  translation  does  injustice  to  the  faithfulness 
and  skill  of  that  celebrated  version. — Some  of  the  recent  versions  render 
mm  so  that  it  is  (Ewald,  LTmbreit),  or  so  that  he  is  (Hendewerk).  Coc- 
ceius  makes  t>03  the  nominative  before  mn,  Junius  the  nominative  after  it. 
The  most  natural  construction  is  to  read  with  Hendewerk,  he  shall  be  (i.  e.  the 
king  of  Assyria),  or  with  the  English  Bible,  they  shall  be  (i.  e.  the  Assyri- 
ans collectively),  or  with  Hitzig  indefinitely,  it  shall  be,  i.  e.  the  end,  issue, 
consequence,  shall  be,  or  the  final  state  of  things  shall  be. — The  remaining 
words  of  the  verse  have  been  very  variously  explained.  Junius  takes  s  as 
a  particle  of  time,  which  sense  it  often  has  before  the  infinitive  :  as  (i.  e.  when) 
he  decays.  All  other  writers  seem  to  give  it  its  usual  comparative  mean- 
ing. Aben  Ezra  makes  side  a  noun  analogous  in  form  to  *vip*,  in  v.  16. 
All  other  writers  seem  to  make  it  the  infinitive  of  &D^  to  melt,  dissolve,  or 
waste  away,  literally  or  figuratively,  with  fear,  grief,  or  disease. — Jarchi 
explains  ooa  as  a  cognate  form  to  00,  and  as  being  the  name  of  a  worm  or 
insect  which  corrodes  wood — he  shall  be  like  the  wasting  of  a  wood-ivorm 
— i.  e.  pulverized.  The  ancient  versions  make  t)fi»  the  participle  of  CD3 
(i.  q.  5*13)  to  flee,  and  Junius  reads  the  whole  clause  thus — and  it  shall  be 
(i.  e.  this  shall  come  to  pass)  when  the  fugitive  shall  melt  away  (or  be  de- 
stroyed)— i.  e.  when  Sennacherib,  fleeing  from  Judah,  shall  be  murdered  at 
home.  Cocceius  explains  oo'a  to  mean  that  which  is  lofty  or  eminent,  and 
takes  it  as  the  subject  of  mn — that  which  is  lofty  shall  be  like  corruption  or 
decay.  Kimchi  derives  the  meaning  of  btjb  from  t>5,  an  ensign  or  standard 
— like  the  fainting  of  an  ensign,  or  as  when  a  standard-bearer  falls  (the 
soldiers  fly).  This  is  followed  by  Calvin,  by  the  French,  Dutch  and  Eng- 
lish versions,  by  Vatablus,  Piscator,  Gataker,  and  Clericus  (who  explains 
GD72  of  the  standard-bearer's  heart  failing  him).  To  this  it  has  been  ob- 
jected, that  S3  never  means  a  military  standard,  but  a  signal  or  a  signal-pole* 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X.  201 

and  that  no  such  effect  as  that  supposed  would  necessarily  follow  from  thi 
flight  or  the  fall  of  an  ensign.  The  first  of  these  objections  applies  also  to 
the  very  different  interpretation  of  Tremellius — and  he  shall  be  a  standard- 
bearer  (to  the  Assyrians)  at  the  time  of  (their)  decline.  The  most  recent 
writers  are  agreed  in  adopting  the  derivation  of  ocb  proposed  by  Hezel  and 
Schelling,  who  compare  it  with  the  Syriac  ooJ  to  be  sick  (whence  the 
adjective  )™  -™i).  and  explain  the  clause  to  mean  it  (or  he)  is  (or  shall  be) 
like  the  fainting  (or  wasting  away)  of  a  sick  man.  None  of  the  ancient 
versions  give  a  literal  translation  of  this  clause.  The  Septuagint  renders 
both  cb^  and  ct>b  by  o  qevyan',  and  adds  ano  yloyos  xaiofitvtjg,  upon  which 
Lowth  does  not  hesitate  to  found  a  change  of  text.  The  Chaldee  para- 
phrase is,  and  he  shall  be  broken  and  a  fugitive — the  Syriac,  he  shall  be  as 
if  he  had  not  been — the  Latin,  erit  terrore  profugus.  To  these  may  be 
added  Luther's — he  shall  waste  away  and  disappear — and  Augusti's — 
there  shall  remain  a  wasted  body.  This  disposition  to  paraphrase  the  clause 
instead  of  translating  it,  together  with  the  various  ways  in  which  it  is  ex- 
plained, may  serve  to  show  how  difficult  and  doubtful  it  has  seemed  to  all 
interpreters,  ancient  and  modern.  The  paronomasia  in  the  original  is  not 
very  happily  copied  by  Gesenius — wie  einer  hinschmachtet  in  Ohnmacht. 

V.  19.  And  the  rest  (or  remnant)  of  the  trees  of  his  forest  shall  be 
few,  and  a  child  shall  write  them,  i.  e.  make  a  list  or  catalogue,  and  by  im- 
plication number  them. — The  singular  form  of  p?  is  retained  in  translation 
by  the  Vulgate  and  Calvin  (reliquiae  ligni),  and  the  sense  of  wood,  though  in 
the  plural,  by  Junius  (reliqua  ligna).  His  forest  is  omitted  by  Hendewerk, 
changed  to  this  forest  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  to  the  forest  by  Gesenius,  and  to 
their  forest  by  Clericus.  The  Septuagint  substitutes  an  aviav,  and  the  Tar- 
gum  an  explanatory  paraphrase,  the  rest  of  his  men  of  ivar. — In  the  He- 
brew idiom,  number,  when  absolutely  used,  has  an  opposite  meaning  to  its 
usual  sense  in  English  and  in  Latin.  By  a  number,  we  generally  mean  a 
considerable  number ;  Horace  says,  nos  numerus  sumus,  meaning,  we  are 
many  (numerous)  ;  but  in  Hebrew,  men  of  number  is  a  few  men  (Gen.  34 : 
30.  Deut.  4  :  27.  33 :  6).  The  idea  seems  to  be  that  small  amounts  may 
easily  be  reckoned,  with  some  allusion,  Rosenmiiller  thinks,  to  the  ancient 
usage  of  weighing  large  and  counting  only  small  sums.  Thus  Cicero  speaks 
of  treasures  so  vast  ut  jam  appendantur  -non  numcrcntur  pecuniae,  and  Ovid 
says,  of  another  kind  of  property,  pauperis  est  numcrare  pecus.  The  same 
idiom  exists  in  Arabic,  the  numbered  days  often  mentioned  in  the  Koran 
being  explained  by  the  commentators  to  mean  few. — The  plural  rn^  may 
either  agree  with  is'S  as  a  collective,  or  with  a  plural  understood — as  for  the 
rest,  they  shall  be  few.  So  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  Rosenmiiller.  In  order  to 
remove  the  ambiguity,  the  words  ibc  -  v-m  are  paraphrastically  rendered  by 


202  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 

the  Vulgate  (prae  paucitate  numerabuntur),  Luther,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis,  Evvald,  Umbreit.  The  English  Version  and  some  others  simply  sub- 
stitute for  ^zs-q  its  peculiar  idiomatic  sense  of  few. — According  to  Rosen- 
miiller,  there  is  an  allusion  in  the  last  clause  to  a  child  just  beginning  to 
count,  and  as  yet  only  able  to  reckon  on  its  ringers,  which  he  thinks  will 
account  for  the  rabbinical  tradition  that  a  definite  number  (ten)  is  here  pre- 
dicted, and  that  just  that  number  of  Sennacherib's  army  did  in  fact  escape. 
Gill  quotes  another  Jewish  legend  which  reduces  the  number  to  five  and 
specifies  the  persons.  The  first  of  these  traditions  is  explained  by  Jarchi  as 
involving  an  allusion  to  the  letter  yodh  (the  alphabetic  representative  of  10), 
as  the  smallest  and  simplest  of  the  Hebrew  characters,  so  that  a  child  who 
was  barely  able  to  form  this  one  would  be  competent  to  write  down  the 
number  of  those  who  should  escape  the  slaughter.  According  to  Gataker 
and  Knobel,  the  idea  is,  that  there  would  be  no  need  of  an  inspector  or  a 
muster-master,  any  child  would  be  able  to  discharge  the  office. 

V.  20.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day  (that  is,  after 
these  events  have  taken  place),  that  the  remnant  of  Israel,  and  the  escaped 
of  the  house  of  Jacob,  shall  no  longer  add  (i.  e.  continue)  to  lean  upon  their 
smiter  (him  that  smote  them),  but  shall  lean  upon  Jehovah,  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel,  in  truth.  There  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  circumstances  which 
gave  rise  to  this  whole  prophecy.  Ahaz,  renouncing  his  dependence  upon 
God,  had  sought  the  aid  of  Assyria,  which  secured  his  deliverance  from  pre- 
sent danger,  but  subjected  the  kingdom  to  worse  evils  from  the  very  power 
to  which  they  had  resorted.  But  even  these  oppressions  were  to  have  an 
end  in  the  destruction  of  the  hostile  power ;  and  when  this  should  take 
place,  Judah,  now  instructed  by  experience,  would  no  longer  trust  in  tyrants 
but  sincerely  in  Jehovah.  Cocceius,  Brentius,  and  Schmidius,  refer  this 
promise  to  the  times  of  Christ  exclusively,  because  this  is  the  usual  applica- 
tion of  the  phrase  that  day ;  because  reliance  upon  God  in  truth  is  a  pecu- 
liar promise  of  the  new  dispensation  ;  because  Israel  did  continue  to  rely  on 
foreign  aid,  even  after  the  decline  of  the  Assyrian  power ;  and  because  vs. 
22,  23,  are  referred  by  Paul  (Rom.  9 :  27,  28)  to  the  times  of  the  New 
Testament.  But  since  this  prophecy  immediately  follows  and  precedes  pre- 
dictions of  the  downfall  of  Assyria,  and  since  that  power  seems  distinctly 
mentioned  in  the  phrase  Jin3E,it  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude,  that  in  thai 
day  means  after  that  event,  and  that  the  reference  is  not  to  a  sudden  and 
immediate  effect,  but  to  a  gradual  result  of  the  divine  dispensations,  so  that 
what  is  here  predicted,  though  it  began  to  be  fulfilled  from  the  time  of  that 
catastrophe,  did  not  receive  its  final  consummation  before  Christ's  appear- 
ance. On  this  supposition,  we  are  better  able  to  explain  the  remnant  of 
Israel,  as  meaning  not  merely  those  left  in  Judah  after  the  carrying  away  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X.  203 

the  ten  tribes — nor  the  Jews  themselves  who  should  outlive  the  Assyrian 

oppressions,  and  to  whom  the  same  phrase  is  applied  2  Kings  19:4,31.21: 
14 — nor  merely  the  .lews  who  should  return  from  the  Babylonish  exile, 
and  to  whom  it  is  applied  Hagg.  1  :  2.  Zech.  8:  6 — nor  merely  the  spir- 
itual Israel,  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  Rom.  1 1  :  5 — 
but  all  these  at  once,  or  rather  in  succession,  should  be  taught  the  lesson  of 
exclusive  reliance  upon  God,  by  his  judgments  on  his  enemies. — The  verbal 
form  CpOV  shall  add  (expressing  continued  or  repeated  action)  is  suppressed 
not  only  in  the  English  Version,  but  in  many  others,  including  the  most  recent. 
It  is  retained  in  the  ancient  versions  and  by  Calvin  and  Cocceius,  and 
accommodated  to  the  idiom  of  other  languages  by  Junius  (pergat),  Augusti 
(fortfahren),  Hendewerk  (aufhoren). — The  verb  stay  used  in  the  English 
Version  to  translate  ■jStfa  is  equivocal,  like  peep  in  v.  14,  because  now  em- 
ployed chiefly  in  another  sense.  The  idea  expressed  by  the  Hebrew  word  is 
simply  that  of  leaning  for  support. — Calvin  renders  the  i  at  the  beginning 
of  the  last  clause  for,  and  Hitzig  no !  Its  true  force  may  be  best  conveyed 
in  English  by  the  simple  adversative  but.  For  the  usage  of  the  phrase 
$KW  BTttp,  vide  supra,  ch.  1  :  9.  By  the  phrase  in  truth,  Cocceius  under- 
stands that  the  elect  should  trust  in  the  reality,  as  distinguished  from  the 
types  and  shadows  of  the  old  economy.  The  common  and  obvious  inter- 
pretation is,  that  they  should  trust  God  in  sincerity,  as  opposed  to  a  mere 
hypocritical  profession,  and  with  constancy,  as  opposed  to  capricious  vacil- 
lation. 

V.  21.  A  remnant  shall  return,  a  remnant  of  Jacob,  to  God  Almighty. 
There  is  an  obvious  allusion  in  these  words  to  the  name  of  the  Prophet's 
son  Shear-jashub,  mentioned  in  ch.  7 :  3.  As  the  people  were  probably 
familiar  with  this  name,  its  introduction  here  would  be  the  more  significant. 
The  Targum  expounds  the  remnant  of  Jacob  to  mean  'those  who  have  not 
sinned,  or  have  turned  from  sin.'  It  really  means  those  who  should  survive 
God's  judgments  threatened  in  this  prophecy,  not  merely  the  Assyrian  inva- 
sion or  the  Babylonish  exile,  but  the  whole  series  of  remarkable  events,  by 
which  the  history  of  the  chosen  people  would  be  marked,  including  the 
destruction  and  dispersion  of  the  nation  by  the  Romans.  There  is  no  need, 
as  Henderson  supposes,  of  supplying  the  words  and  only  in  the  text  or  in 
translation.  That  idea,  as  Hitzig  well  observes,  is  suggested  by  the  repetition. 
The  return  here  spoken  of  is  one  that  was  to  take  place  at  various  times  and 
in  various  circumstances.  Under  the  old  dispensation,  the  prophecy  was 
verified  in  the  conversion  of  idolatrous  Jews  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  or  of 
wicked  Jews  to  a  godly  life,  by  means  of  their  afflictions — under  the  m 
in  the  admission  of  believing  Jews  to  the  Christian  church,  and  prospectively 
in  the  general  conversion  of  Israel  to   God,  which  is  yet  to  be  expected. 


c^04  ISAIAH,  CHAP.   X. 

Grotius  imagines  that  the  return  here  mentioned  is  that  of  the  Jews,  whom 
Sennacherib's  invasion  had  assembled  in  Jerusalem,  to  their  own  homes  ; 
but  this  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  words  that  follow,  to  the  Mighty 
God,  which  in  that  case  would  mean  nothing.  These  words  are  understood 
by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  DeWette,  here  as  in  ch.  9 :  5,  to  mean  mighty 
hero.  Hendewerk,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  with  all  the  early  writers,  give 
the  words  their  proper  sense.  They  shall  return  to  Him  who  has  thus 
shown  himself  to  be  the  Mighty  God.  Jarchi  supposes  a  special  allusion  to 
the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army  ;  Clericus,  to  the  impotence  of  idols, 
from  whose  worship  they  would  turn  to  that  of  the  true  God,  the  God  truly 
and  exclusively  omnipotent.  The  present  form  given  to  the  verb  turn  by 
the  recent  German  writers,  is  less  suited  to  so  manifest  a  promise  than  the 
proper  future. — The  definite  article  (the  remnant),  which  is  used  in  the 
English  Version  and  by  Barnes,  is  less  exact  than  the  indefinite  one 
employed  by  Lowth  and  Henderson. 

V.  22.  The  Prophet  now  explains  his  use  of  the  word  remnant,  and 
shows  that  the  threatening  which  it  involves  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
ancient  promises.  For  though  thy  people,  oh  Israel  (or  Jacob),  shall  be 
like  the  sand  of  the  sea  (in  multitude),  only  a  remnant  of  them  shall  return. 
A  consumption  is  decreed,  overflowing  (with)  righteousness.  The  first 
clause  is  explained  by  Augusti,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  DeWette,  Ewald,  Um- 
breit,  as  expressive  only  of  a  possible  contingency  (were  thy  people,  or  even 
if  thy  people  were) — by  Luther,  Gesenius,  and  Barnes,  as  referring  to 
their  actual  condition  (though  thy  people  be  now  numerous) — but  more 
correctly  by  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  Lowth,  as  relating  to  a  certain  event, 
but  one  still  future  (though  thy  people  shall  be  or  is  to  be).  There  seems, 
as  Calvin  says,  to  be  allusion  to  the  promises  given  to  the  Patriarchs  (e.  g. 
Gen.  13:  16.  22:  17),  and  repeated  by  the  Prophets  (e.  g.  Hos.  2:  1), 
the  fulfilment  of  which  might  have  seemed  to  be  precluded  by  the  threaten- 
ing in  v.  21 — to  prevent  which  false  conclusion,  Isaiah  here  repeats  the 
threatening  with  the  promise — '  though  thy  people  shall  indeed  be  numerous, 
yet 'etc.  This  particle,  supplied  in  the  English  Version,  though  unneces- 
sary, does  not  "  evidently  obscure  the  sense  "  (Barnes),  but  makes  it  clearer 
by  rendering  more  prominent  the  apparent  opposition  between  the  threatening 
and  the  promise. — Israelis  taken  in  the  Septuagintand  English  Version,  and 
by  Henderson,  as  a  nominative  in  apposition  with  thy  people,  God  himself 
being  the  object  of  address  ;  but  the  better  and  more  usual  construction 
regards  Israel  as  a  vocative.  The  name  may  be  understood  as  that  of  the 
nation  ;  but  there  is  more  force  in  the  language  if  we  suppose  (with  Calvin) 
an  apostrophe  to  Israel  or  Jacob  as  the  common  ancestor,  thus  keeping  up  a 
distinct  allusion  to  the  ancient  promises.     Thy  people  will  then  mean  thy 


ISAIAH,   CII  A  1\    X.  VO.'j 

posterity — not  the  ten  tribes  exclusively,  nor  Judah  exclusively,  but  the 
whole  race  without  distinction. — Like  the  sand  of  the  sea  does  not 
mean  scattered  and  £spised,  as  Augusti  strangely  imagines,  but  innumera- 
ble,  as  in  every  other  ease  where  the  comparison  occurs  (e.  g.  (Jen.  22:  17. 
Ps.  139  :  18.  Hos.  2:  1.  cf.  Gen.  13  :  16).  Henderson  explains  is  to  him, 
i.  e.  to  God,  as  in  Hos.  12:6;  but  it  rather  means  Ml  it,  i.  e.  in  thy  people,  as 
we  express  proportion  by  saying  '  one  in  ten.'  It  is  retained  by  Cocceius  (in 
eo),  Umbreit  (darin),  and  Ewald  (darunter)  ;  but  in  order  to  avoid  the  am- 
biguity arising  from  a  difference  of  idiom,  the  in  may  be  exchanged  for  of 
or  from,  as  in  the  ancient  versions  and  by  most  modern  writers.  Gesenius, 
Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  DeWette,  use  the  present  form  returns,  which  is 
not  so  natural  in  this  connexion  as  the  future  given  by  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and 
all  the  older  writers.  The  return  predicted  is  not  merely  that  from  the 
Babylonish  exile,  but  a  return  to  God  by  true  repentance  and  conversion, 
as  the  only  means  of  salvation — reliquiae  convertentur  (Vulgate).  That  a 
remnant  only  should  escape,  implies  of  course  a  general  destruction,  which 
is  positively  foretold  in  the  last  clause.  Grotius  and  Clericus  explain  JV&a 
to  mean  a  reckoning,  or  a  sum  as  determined  by  a  reckoning,  here  applied 
to  the  remnant  of  Israel  as  a  small  number,  easily  computed.  This,  accord- 
ing to  Clericus,  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  Vulgate  version,  consummation 
Forerius  and  Sanctius  understand  by  it  the  remnant  itself,  as  having  been 
almost  consumed — DeDieu,  a  decree  or  determination — J.  D.  Michaelis, 
the  accomplishment  or  execution  of  a  purpose — but  the  simple  and  true 
meaning  is  consumption  or  destruction,  as  in  Deut.  28 :  65. — Forerius 
strangely  understands  "p">n  to  mean  a  harrow,  or  a  threshing-machine,  figura- 
tively applied  to  the  sufferings  of  the  people..  Some  explain  it  as  an  adjective, 
meaning  severe  (Umbreit)  or  certain  (Vatablus) — the  Vulgate  as  a  participle, 
meaning  shortened.  Aben  Ezra  gives  the  true  explanation  of  the  word,  as 
a  participle  meaning  decreed,  determined  (1  Kings  20 :  40).  Henderson 
supposes  an  allusion  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb  (to  cut,  carve,  or 
engrave),  implying  permanence  and  immutability.  Junius  and  Clericus 
make  this  phrase  dependent  on  5)au5  as  a  transitive  verbal  form ;  but  it  is 
rather  to  be  construed  with  the  substantive  verb  understood — a  consumption 
is  decreed — or  as  a  subject  with  Cjiaaj  as  a  predicate — the  consumption 
decreed  (is)  overflowing,  i.  e.  overflows — a  metaphor  frequently  applied  to 
invading  armies  (ch.  8 :  8.  28 :  15,  18.  Dan.  11  :  20,  22) — so  that  there  is 
no  need  of  attaching  to  C]ou5  the  Chaldee  sense  of  hastening,  as  proposed  by 
Clericus.  He  also  makes  it  agree  with  the  name  of  God,  as  Grotius  does 
with  remnant ;  but  it  really  agrees  with  consumption.  Righteousness,  ac- 
cording to  DeDieu,  here  means  goodness  in  general  and  mercy  in  particular. 
Calvin  and  Grotius  too  explain  it  to  mean  piety  or  virtue  ;  but  Vitringa 
and  others  take  it  more  correctly  in  its  strict  sense  of  retributive  and  puni- 


206  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 

tive  justice.  A  preposition  is  supplied  before  it  by  the  Septuagint  (fV  dixctio- 
ovvrt)  and  Umbreit  (mit  Gerechtigkeit),  making  it  merely  an  attendant  cir- 
cumstance. Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  ^eWette,  make  it  the 
object  of  qatii  considered  as  an  active  verb — floating  righteousness  in,  i.  e. 
bringing  it  in  like  a  flood.  Ewald  and  others  make  the  noun  an  adverbial 
accusative — -flowing  or  overflowing  (with)  righteousness.  The  sense  is 
not  that  the  remnant  of  Israel  should  be  the  means  of  flooding  the  world 
with  righteousness  (Calvin),  nor  that  they  should  be  full  of  it  themselves 
(Grotius),  but  that  the  destruction  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  would  be 
an  event  involving  an  abundant  exhibition  of  God's  justice.  This  clause  is 
therefore  not,  as  DeDieu  alleges,  a  direct  promise  of  deliverance  to  the 
elect,  but  a  threatening  of  destruction  to  the  reprobate. 

V.  23.  This  verse  contains  a  further  explanation  of  the  yv^n  Ti^s. 
For  a  consumption  even  (the  one)  determined,  (is)  the  Lord,  Jehovah 
of  Hosts,  making  (or  about  to  make)  in  the  midst  of  all  the  earth. — Au- 
gusti  makes  ribs  a  verb  (abgemessen  ist),  Vitringa  a  participle  (consumma- 
tum).  Clericus  takes  it  as  a  noun,  but  in  the  sense  of  sum  or  reckoning, 
Lowth  in  that  of  full  decree.  Castalio  has  slaughter,  which  is  too  specific ; 
Gesenius  tvasting,  which  is  not  strong  enough.  Most  writers  follow  the 
ancient  versions  in  translating  it  consumption  or  destruction.  Castalio  and 
Umbreit  make  fixina  an  adjective,  meaning  cruel  or  severe.  The  Targum 
seems  to  treat  it  as  an  adjective  without  a  substantive,  used  as  a  noun, 
synonymous  with  ribs.  Cocceius,  Junius,  Gesenius,  Ewald  and  others,  give 
it  the  sense  of  something  decreed,  a  decree,  a  judgment.  It  may,  however, 
be  more  strictly  understood  as  a-  passive  participle  agreeing  with  fibs — a 
consumption,  even  a  decreed  (consumption). — b's  is  omitted  by  the  Targum, 
Lowth  and  Barnes,  and  rendered  all  this  by  Junius  and  Piscator,  so  as  to 
give  VW  the  restricted  sense  of  land,  which  is  the  common  explanation, 
although  Ewald  has  earth,  like  the  Septuagint  (omovpwq).  This  verse  and 
the  one  before  it  are  quoted  by  Paul  (Rom.  9 :  27,  28),  to  show  that  the 
Jews,  as  such,  were  not  the  heirs  of  the  promise,  which  was  intended  for  the 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  The  words  are  quoted  from  the 
Septuagint  with  a  slight  variation.  The  sense  of  the  Greek  is  correctly 
given  in  the  English  version* 

V.  24.  The  logical  connexion  of  this  verse  is  not  with  that  immedi- 
ately preceding,  but  with  v.  19.  Having  there  declared  the  fate  impending 
over  the  Assyrian,  the  Prophet,  as  it  were,  turned  aside  to  describe  the  effect  of 
their  destruction  on  the  remnant  of  Israel,  and  now,  having  done  so,  he  resumes 
the  thread  of  his  discourse,  as  if  there  had  been  no  interruption.  Therefore 
(since  this  is  soon  to   be  the  fate  of  the  Assyrians)  be  not  afraid,  oh  my 


ISAIAH,  C  II  A  I'-    X.  Wl 

people  inhabiting  Zion,  of  Asshur  (or  the  Assyrian).  He  shall  smile  thee 
(it  is  true)  with  the  rod,  ami  shall  lift  up  his  staff  upon  (or  over)  thee  in 
the  way  of  Egypt.  There  is  consequently  DO  need  of  departing  from  the 
ordinary  meaning  of  --'-,  and  rendering  it  but,  as.Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Hender- 
son and  Unibreit  do. —  Instead  of  saith,  Clericus  and  J.  II.  Michaelifl  read 
hath  said  in  the  past  tense,  which  seems  to  make  the  verse  the  record  of  a 
former  revelation. — According  to  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  Zion  is  here  put 
simply  for  Jerusalem,  and  the  address  is  to  the  population  of  that  city,  whe- 
ther permanent  or  temporary,  during  Sennacherib's  invasion.  But  as  Zion  was 
the  seat  of  the  true  religion,  and  the  people  of  God  are  often  said  to  inhabit 
Zion,  not  in  a  local  but  a  spiritual  sense,  most  interpreters  understand  the 
object  of  address  to  be  Israel  in  general,  while  some  restrict  it  to  the  pious 
and  believing  Jews,  the  remnant  of  Israel,  who  were  now  to  be  consoled 
and  reassured  amidst  the  judgments  which  were  coming  on  the  nation — TOfcg 
is  properly  the  name  of  the  whole  people,  and  denotes  the  Assyrians  in  the 
strict  sense,  and  not,  as  Cocceius  suggests,  the  Syro-Grecian  kings  who  suc- 
ceeded Alexander,  or  the  Babylonians  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  though  the 
terms  of  the  consolation  are  so  chosen  as  to  be  appropriate  to  other  emer- 
gencies than  that  by  which  they  were  immediately  occasioned. — Gesenius, 
Hitzig,  DeWette,  Hendewerk  and  Umbreit  make  M33?  a  description  of  the 
past  (he  smote  thee),  which  is  wholly  arbitrary,  if  not  ungrammatical. 
Evvald  and  Knobel  translate  it  as  a  present,  and  supply  a  relative  (who 
smites  thee).  Henderson  has  he  may  smite  thee,  which  appears  to  render  it 
too  vague  and  dubious.  By  far  the  simplest  and  most  natural  construction 
is  that  which  gives  the  future  form  its  strict  sense  (he  shall  smite  thee),  and 
explains  the  clause  as  a  concession  of  the  fact,  that  Israel  was  indeed  to 
suffer  at  the  hand  of  Assyria — q.  d.  true,  he  shall  smite  thee  with  the  rod 
etc.  Aben  Ezra  supposes  this  to  mean,  that  Assyria  should  smite  them 
only  in  design,  i.  e.  try  to  smite  them — others,  that  he  should  do  no  more 
than  smite  them,  he  should  smite  but  not  kill,  as  a  master  treats  his  slave, 
or  a  rider  his  beast.  It  seems  more  natural,  however,  to  explain  it  in  a 
general  way,  as  simply  conceding  that  they  should  be  smitten,  the  necessary 
qualification  or  restriction  being  afterwards  expressed. — Here,  as  in  ch.  9  : 
3,  Vitringa  understands  by  naa  a  yoke,*  and  by  the  whole  phrase,  he  shall 
lift  up  (and  impose)  his  yoke  upon  thee.  This  does  not  materially  change 
the  sense,  but  makes  a  distinction  between  the  parallel  expressions  which, 
to  say  the  least,  is  needless  and  gratuitous.  The  best  interpretation  is  the 
common  one,  which  takes  rod  and  staff  as  equivalent  figures  for  oppression. 
— The  last  words,  in  the  way  of  Egypt,  are  ambiguous,  and  admit  of  two 
distinct  interpretations.  Some  early  writers,  quoted  by  Calvin,  make  the 
phrase  to  mean,  on  the  way  to  (or  from)  Egypt,  in  allusion  to  the  fact,  that 
Sennacherib  attacked  Judea  in  the  course  of  an  expedition  against  Egypt. 


208  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 


This  view  of  the  passage  is  adopted  by  Jerome,  Clericus,  J.  D.  Michaelis 
and  Augusti,  and  has  much  to  recommend  it,  as  it  seems  to  adhere  to  the 
literal  import  of  the  terms,  and  introduces  a  striking  coincidence  of  prophecy 
with  history.  The  principal  objection  is  derived  from  the  analogy  of  v.  26. 
The  weight  of  exegetical  authority  preponderates  in  favour  of  a  figurative 
exposition,  making  in  the  way  synonymous  with  in  the  manner,  after  the 
example  as  in  Amos  4:  10.  The  sense  will  then  be  this  :  '  Assyria  shall 
oppress  thee  as  Egypt  did  before.' — An  entirely  different  construction  of  this 
whole  clause  is  that  given  by  Junius  and  Tremellius,  who  make  God  him- 
self the  subject  of  the  verbs  Sissn  and  K$\  He  shall  smite  thee  with  the 
rod  (i.  e.  with  the  Assyrian,  so  called  in  v.  5),  but  his  staff  he  will  lift  up  for 
thee  (i.  e.  for  thy  deliverance)  as  he  did  in  Egypt  (when  the  Red  Sea  was 
divided  by  the  rod  of  Moses).  This  construction,  though  ingenious,  is  to  be 
rejected,  on  the  ground  that  it  supposes  an  antithesis  and  changes  and  to 
but  without  necessity,  refers  the  rod  and  staff  to  different  subjects,  although 
both  are  applied  to  the  Assyrian  in  v.  5,  and  gives  the  preposition  bs  the 
sense  of  for  or  in  behalf  of  which  it  cannot  naturally  have  in  this  connex- 
ion, especially  when  following  the  verb  H^p* 

V.  25.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  the  exhortation  not  to  fear  in  v. 
24.  For  yet  a  very  little,  and  wrath  is  at  an  end,  and  my  anger  (shall  go 
forth  or  tend)  to  their  destruction,  i.  e.  the  destruction  of  the  enemy.  In- 
terpreters are  not  agreed  upon  the  question  whether  the  first  clause  has 
reference  to  that  destruction  also,  or  to  the  restoration  of  God's  people  to 
his  favour.  Kimchi,  Luther,  Calvin,  Clericus,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Augusti, 
Rosenmuller,  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk,  refer  both  HPt  and  ^bx  to  God's  displea- 
sure with  Assyria,  and  this  seems  to  be  the  sense  designed  to  be  conveyed 
by  the  English  Version,  ri^3  will  then  mean  to  exhaust  or  sate  itself.  But 
Jarchi,  Junius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Maurer, 
Barnes,  DeWette,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel,  refer  D?t  to  God's  anger  against 
Israel,  and  ^QH  to  his  wrath  against  Assyria.  <  For  yet  a  very  little,  and 
the  indignation,  which  has  caused  these  sufferings  to  my  people,  shall  be 
ended,  and  my  wrath  shall  turn  to  the  destruction  of  their  enemies.'  The 
only  objection  to  this  exposition  is  that  it  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  some  verb 
in  the  last  clause,  and  in  that  respect  is  not  so  simple  as  the  other,  which 
construes  both  the  nouns  with  nbs.  In  favour  of  it  may  be  urged,  not  only 
the  authorities  already  cited,  but  the  fact  that  it  makes  the  connexion  with 
the  foregoing  verse  much  more  natural  and  easy — that  it  gives  n^3  its  usual 
sense  of  being  terminated,  coming  to  an  end — and  o?t  its  appropriated  sense 
of  God's  displeasure  with  his  own  people.  (Vide  supra,  v.  5.  also  ch.  30  : 
27.  28 :  20.  Dan.  8  :  19).  The  preterite  form  of  n^3  is  beautifully  expres- 
sive of  the  change  as  already  past  in  the  view  of  the  Prophet.     This  effect 


ISAJAH,  CHAP.  X.  209 

is  greatly  weakened  l>y  a  substitution  of  the  future  (shall  cease)  for  the  past 
(has  ceased  already).  For  DrV&an  (from  hta)  some  MSS.  read  ervban  from 
ribs,  and  Luzzatto  er*  Vzr  (my  wrath  against  the  world  shall  cease). 

V.  26.  The  suddenness  and  completeness  of  the  ruin  threatened  are  ex- 
pressed by  a  comparison  with  two  remarkable  events  in  sacred  history,  the 
slaughter  of  the  Midianites  by  Gideon,  and  the  overthrow  of  Pharaoh  in  the 
Red  Sea.  And  Jehovah  of  Hosts  shall  raise  up  against  him  (the  Assyrian) 
a  scourge  (or  instrument  of  vengeance)  like  the  smiting  of  Midian  at  the 
rock  Orch,  and  his  rod  (Jehovah's)  shall  again  be  over  the.  sea,  and  he  shall 
lift  it  up  (again)  as  he  did  in  Egypt  (literally,  in  the  way  of  Egypt,  as  in 
v.  24). — The  rock  Oreb  is  particularly  mentioned  because  one  of  the  Midi- 
anitish  princes,  who  had  escaped  from  the  field  of  battle,  was  there  slain  by 
Gideon  ;  and  so  Sennacherib,  although  he  should  survive  the  slaughter  of 
his  host,  was  to  be  slain  at  home  (ch.  37 :  38). — In  the  last  clause  there  is 
a  beautiful  allusion  to  v.  24.  As  the  Assyrians  lifted  up  the  rod  over  Israel 
in  the  manner  of  Egypt,  so  God  would  lift  up  the  rod  over  them  in  the 
manner  of  Egypt.  As  they  were  like  the  Egyptians  in  their  sin,  so  should 
they  now  be  like  them  in  their  punishment. — According  to  the  Rabbins  --r 
is  something  more  than  End,  as  flagellum  is  distinguished  from  scutica  by 
Horace.  They  had  lifted  a  rod  over  Israel,  but  God  would  raise  up  a 
scourge  against  them. — The  construction  of  the  last  clause  in  the  English  Bi- 
ble— and  (as)  his  rod  was  upon  the  sea,  (so)  shall  he  lift  it  up  etc. — 
puts  an  arbitrary  meaning  on  the  particles.  According  to  the  first  con- 
struction given,  his  rod  (shall  be  again)  upon  the  sea  is  a  poetical  expres- 
sion for  'his  power  shall  again  be  miraculously  displayed.' — Cocceius  refers 
the  suffix  in  W1»B  to  "Atftt,  by  which  he  understands  the  Syro-Grecian  kings, 
and  especially  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  invaded  Cyprus  and  made  an  at- 
tempt upon  Egypt,  but  was  driven  back  by  the  Romans.  Hence  he  reads 
— and  his  (the  Assyrian's)  rod  shall  be  over  the  sea,  and  he  shall  lift  it  up 
(or  one  shall  take  it  away  from  him)  in  the  ivay  to  Egypt. 

V.  27.  And  it  shall  be  (happen  or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day  (when 
this  prediction  is  fulfilled)  that  his  burden  (the  burden  imposed  by  him,  the 
heavy  load  of  Assyrian  oppression,  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  the 
tribute  imposed  upon  Hezekiah)  shall  depart  (be  removed)  from  thy  shoul- 
der, and  his  yoke  (a  poetical  equivalent  to  burden)  from  thy  neck 
(oh  Israel !)  and  the  yoke  (itself)  shall  be  destroyed  (or  broken  off)  because 
of  (literally,  from  the  face  of)  oil  (or  fatness  or  anointing).  The  only  diffi- 
culty lies  in  the  concluding  words,  which  have  been  variously  understood. 
Some  have  attempted  to  remove  the  difficulty  by  a  change  of  text.  Thus 
Lowth  reads  CD^astt)  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  (anb  rav  wftcor) — 

14 


210  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  X. 

Seeker  "^^J  "ttSS  on  account  of  my  name,  or  *}«$  *»Mfl3  %  the  sons  of  oil — J. 
D.  Michaelis  (for  ^sn)  brin  the  band  of  the  yoke.     Of  those  who  retain  the 
common  text,  some  take  jvti  in  its  usual  sense  of  oil,  and  suppose  an  allu- 
sion  to  the  softening  of  the  yoke  with   oil,  or  to  its  preservation  by  it. 
'  Whereas   yokes   are  commonly  preserved  by  oil,  this  on  the  contrary  shall 
be  destroyed  by  it'  (Kocher).     But  in  this  interpretation,  the  explanatory 
fact  is  arbitrarily  assumed.     Others  take  yy&  in  the  sense  of  fat  or  fatness  3 
and  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  rejection  of  the  yoke  by  a  fat  bullock,  Deut. 
32  :  15.  Hos.  4 :  16.  10 :  11  (Gesenius),  or  to  the  bursting  of  the  yoke  by  the 
increasing  fatness  of  the  bullock's  neck  (Hitzig,  Hendewerk),or  to  the  wear- 
ing away  of  the  yoke  by  the  neck,  instead  of  the  neck  by  the  yoke  (Kimchi). 
Of  those  who  give  this  sense  to  yjfet  some  give  to  "'as  its  strict  sense,  face. 
Thus  Doederlein — the  yoke  shall  be  destroyed  from  off  the  fat-faced,  i.  e. 
prosperous.  Others  read  the  yoke  shall  be  destroyed  by  the  fatness  (i.  e.  the  ex- 
cessive wealth  and  prosperity  of  the  Assyrian  empire) — or  before  the  increasing 
prosperity  of  Judah.     Knobel  supposes  the  face  of  the  bullock  to  be  meant 
(compare  Job  41 :  6),  and  with  J.  D.  Michaelis  reading  ^n,  understands 
the  verse  as  meaning  that  the  yoke  shall  first  slip  from  the  shoulder  of  the 
animal,  then  from  its   neck,  and  lastly  from  its  fat  face  or  head.     Jerome 
and  Vitringa  understand  by  "jwfl  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  Spirit 
of  grace  and  supplications,  with  allusion  to  the  influence  of  Hezekiah's 
prayers.     Grotius  and  Dathe  follow  Jarchi  and  Kimchi  in  explaining  *psa3  as 
an  abstract  used  for  a  concrete,  anointing  for  anointed  one,  which  they 
apply  to  Hezekiah.     The  Targum  gives  the  same  construction,  but  applies 
the  word  to  the  Messiah,  in  which  it  is  followed  by  Calvin  and  Henderson. 
The  general  meaning  of  the  verse  is  plain,  as   a  prediction  of  deliverance 
from  Assyrian  bondage. 

V.  28.  From  the  time  of  the  Assyrian's  overthrow  the  Prophet  now  re- 
verts to  that  of  his  invasion,  which  he  describes  in  the  most  vivid  manner 
by  rapidly  enumerating  the  main  points  of  his  march  from  the  frontier  of  Ju- 
dah to  the  gates  of  Jerusalem.  From  the  geographical  minuteness  and  pre- 
cision of  this  passage,  Eichhorn  and  Hitzig  have  inferred  that  it  was  written 
after  the  event,  because  Isaiah  could  not  know  what  route  Sennacherib 
would  take.  Ewald  supposes  the  description  to  be  drawn  from  what  had 
actually  taken  place  in  former  cases,  i.  e.  from  the  route  of  the  Assyrians  on 
previous  occasions,  but  applied  to  an  event  still  future.  Gesenius  and  Hen- 
dewerk  regard  the  description  as  ideal  and  intended  to  express,  in  a  poetical 
manner,  the  quarter  from  which  the  invasion  was  to  come  and  its  general 
direction,  by  rapidly  enumerating  certain  places  as  the  points  through  which 
it  was  to  pass.  The  same  position  is  maintained  in  Robinson's  Researches 
(vol.  2.  p.  149),  on  the  ground  that  the  road  here  traced  could  never  have 


ISA  I  A  II,   CHAT.    X.  211 

been  commonly  used,  because  impracticable  from  tlie  nature  of  the  ground. 
If  passable  at  all,  however,  it  may  well  have  been  adopted  in  a  case  of  bold 
invasion,  where  surprise  was  a  main  object.  The  difficulties  of  the  route  in 
question  must  be  slight  compared  with  those  by  which  Hannibal  and  Na- 
poleon crossed  the  Alps.  It  is  therefore  not  impossible  nor  even  improba- 
ble, that  Isaiah  intended  to  delineate  the  actual  course  taken  by  Sennach- 
erib. At  the  same  time  this  is  not  a  necessary  supposition,  since  we  may 
conceive  the  Prophet  standing  in  vision  on  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  look- 
ing towards  the  quarter  from  which  the  invasion  was  to  come,  enumerating 
certain  intervening  points,  without  intending  to  predict  that  he  would  really 
pass  through  them.  In  this  case,  the  more  difficult  the  route  described,  the 
better  suited  would  it  be  to  express  the  idea  that  the  enemy  would  come  in 
spite  of  all  opposing  obstacles.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  the  invasion  here 
described  to  be  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar — partly  because  that  supposition, 
as  he  thinks,  makes  the  connexion  between  this  and  the  next  chapter  clearer 
and  more  natural — partly  because  the  Babylonian  army  did  pursue  this 
course,  whereas  Sennacherib  came  against  Jerusalem  from  the  south 
(Isai.  36  :  2).  That  there  is  no  weight  in  the  former  argument,  will  be 
shown  in  the  proper  place.  That  there  is  little  in  the  other,  will  appear 
from  the  consideration,  that  the  history  contains  no  account  of  Sennacherib's 
own  march  upon  the  city,  but  only  of  Rabshakeh's  embassy  from  Lachish, 
and  it  is  expressly  said  that  when  that  officer  rejoined  his  master,  he  had 
already  advanced  further  to  the  north.  It  is  easy  to  imagine,  therefore,  that 
he  may  have  chosen  a  circuitous  and  difficult  approach,  in  order  to  take  the 
city  by  surprise.  Besides  the  inconclusiveness  of  these  objections  to  the  old 
interpretation,  that  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  is  exposed  to  very  serious  objections  ; 
for  example,  that  the  foregoing  context  has  relation  to  Assyria,  without  any 
intimation  of  a  change  of  subject ;  that  there  is  no  hint  of  the  city's  being 
taken,  much  less  destroyed  ;  that  the  description  in  the  text  is  not  one  of  a 
deliberate,  protracted  occupation,  but  of  a  rapid  and  transient  incursion  ;  that 
the  march  is  immediately  followed  by  a  great  reverse  and  sudden  overthrow, 
whereas  Nebuchadnezzar  was  entirely  successful.  On  these  and  other 
grounds,  the  passage  is  applied  by  most  interpreters  to  the  Assyrians,  al- 
though some  suppose  Sennacherib's  personal  approach  to  be  described,  and 
others  that  of  his  representative  (Junius,  Robinson  etc.). — The  places  here 
enumerated  seem  to  have  belonged  chiefly  or  wholly  to  the  tribes  of  Benjamin 
and  Judah.  Some  of  them  are  still  in  existence,  and  the  site  of  several  has 
been  recently  determined  by  the  personal  observations  and  inquiries  of  Rob- 
inson and  Smith.  The  catalogue  begins  at  the  frontier  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  and,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  suggests,  at  the  first  place  conquered  by  the 
Israelites  on  taking  possession  of  the  land.  The  language  is  precisely  that 
of  an  eye-witness  describing  at  the  moment  what  he  actually  sees.     He  is 


212  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 

come  to  Aiath — he  is  passed  to  Migron — to  Michmash  he  intrusts  his 
baggage.  Although  the  form  Aiath  nowhere  else  occurs,  it  is  commonly 
supposed  to  be  the  same  with  Ai,  the  ancient  royal  city  of  the  Canaanites, 
destroyed  by  Joshua  (Josh.  8  :  1),  and  afterwards  rebuilt  (Ezra  2  :  28.  Neh. 
8  :  32).  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  the  name  here  denotes 
the  spot  or  the  region  in  which  Ai  once  stood,  as  explained  by  Junius  (Haj- 
anam  regionem  versus).  The  ancient  Ai  was  situated  on  a  height  to  the 
north-east  of  Jerusalem.  Eusebius  describes  it  as  in  ruins  when  he  wrote, 
and  Jerome  says  its  remains  were  scarcely  visible  in  his  day.  Accord- 
ing to  Robinson,  its  site  is  probably  still  marked  by  certain  ruins,  south  of 
Deir  Diwan,  an  hour  from  Bethel. — The  present  form,  he  passes,  represents 
the  thing  as  actually  taking  place ;  the  preterite,  he  has  passed,  implies  that 
he  has  scarcely  reached  a  place  before  he  leaves  it,  and  is  therefore  more 
expressive  of  his  rapid  movements.  Either  is  better  than  the  future  form 
adopted  by  the  ancient  versions.  According  to  J.  D.  "Michaelis,  he  passes 
by  Migron  without  entering — according  to  others,  he  passes  to  Migron  from 
Ai — according  to  Gesenius  and  the  other  recent  versions,  he  passes  through 
Migron,  as  the  second  landmark  on  the  route  of  the  invaders.  The  precise 
situation  of  this  place  is  now  unknown,  as  it  is  mentioned  only  here  and  in 
1  Sam.  14  :  2,  from  which  text  it  would  seem  to  have  been  near  to  Gibeah. 
— Michmash  is  still  in  existence  under  the  almost  unchanged  name  of  Mukh- 
mas,  to  the  north-east  of  Jeba,  on  the  slope  of  a  steep  valley.  The  place 
is  now  desolate,  but  exhibits  signs  of  former  strength,  foundations  of  hewn 
stone  and  prostrate  columns.  Some  give  to  "PRB?  here  its  secondary  sense 
of  depositing  his  baggage,  stores,  etc.  (called  in  old  English,  carriages), 
i.  e.  merely  while  he  halted  (Barnes),  or  leaving  them  behind  to  expedite  his 
march  (Grotius),  or  because  not  needed  for  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  (Je- 
rome), or  on  account  of  the  difficult  passage  mentioned  in  the  next  verse 
(Hendewerk). 

V.  29.  They  have  passed  the  pass,  a  narrow  passage  between  Mich- 
mash and  Geba  (I  Sam.  13 :  3,  5  etc.),  a  spot  no  doubt  easily  maintained 
against  an  enemy.  Their  passing  it  implies  that  they  met  with  no  resist- 
ance, or  had  overcome  it,  and  that  there  was  now  little  or  nothing  to  impede 
their  march.  In  Geba  they  have  taken  up  their  lodging  (literally,  lodged 
a  lodging).  Geba  appears  from  1  Kings  15  :  22  to  have  been  on  or  near 
the  line  between  Benjamin  and  Judah.  There  is  a  small  village  now  called 
Jeba,  half  in  ruins,  with  large  hewn  stones  and  the  remains  of  a  square 
tower,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  valley  from  the  ancient  Michmash.  This 
place  Robinson  and  Smith  supposed  at  first  to  be  Geba,  but  afterwards 
concluded  that  it  must  be  Gibeah  of  Saul,  and  that  the  site  of  Geba  must 
be  further  down,  where  they  heard  of  ruins,  but  had  not  time  to  explore 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X.  213 

(vol.  2.  pp.  114,  115).  Knobel  alleges  that  Geba  and  Gibeah  of  Saul  were 
one  and  the  same  place,  and  adopts  the  Vulgate  version  of  the  phrase  y'r: 
^b  (Gaba  sedes  nostra),  which  is  also  retained  by  Barnes  (Geba  is  a 
lodging- place  for  us).  This  supposes  the  Assyrians  to  be  suddenly  intro- 
duced as  speaking,  to  avoid  which  abrupt  change  of  construction,  Lowth, 
Doederlein,  and  Dalhe,  adopt  the  reading  of  the  Targum,  "isb  for  b^.  Most 
interpreters,  however,  follow  A  ben  Ezra  in  explaining  wb  as  a  verb  from 
"jib.  The  construction  of  the  verb  with  its  derivative  noun  is  analogous  to 
that  of  dreaming  a  dream,  and  other  like  expressions.  The  form  of  the  ori- 
ginal is  imitated  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  (in  diversorium  diverterunt). 
This  construction  of  *b\  as  a  verb  is  favoured  by  the  parallelism,  maitta  YH9 
being  a  similar  combination  of  a  noun  with  its  verbal  root. — Thus  far  he  has 
described  what  the  Assyrians  themselves  do — they  cross  the  line  at  Ajath — 
pass  through  Migron — leave  their  baggage  at  Michmash — lodge  at  Geba. 
Now  he  describes  what  the  places  themselves  do — Ramah  trembles — Gibeah 
of  Saul  flees.  Ramah  was  a  city  of  Benjamin,  near  Gibeah,  but  further 
from  Jerusalem.  It  is  still  in  existence  as  Er-ram,  which  is  the  masculine 
form  of  the  one  here  used,  with  the  Arabic  article  prefixed.  It  is  about  half 
a  mile  nearly  due  west  of  Jeba,  but  hidden  from  it  by  intervening  heights 
(Robinson,  vol.  2.  pp.  108 — 114).  It  is  two  hours  north  of  Jerusalem,  on 
the  eastern  side  of  the  road  to  Nablus.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  describe  it  as 
a  small  village,  six  Roman  miles  from  Jerusalem.  The  identity  of  this 
place  with  the  ancient  Ramah  was  long  lost  sight  of,  but  has  been  clearly 
ascertained  by  Smith  and  Robinson.  Ramah  trembles  (or  is  afraid)  at  the 
enemy's  approach,  a  strong  and  beautiful  personification,  or  the  place  may 
be  simply  put  for  its  inhabitants,  as  in  the  Targum.  The  trembling  and 
flight  of  these  towns  is  naturally  represented  as  occurring  while  the  enemy 
was  resting  at  Geba.  It  may  imply  either  that  Ramah  was  not  in  the 
direct  line  of  the  march,  but  within  sight  and  hearing  of  it,  or  on  the  con- 
trary, that  it  was  the  next  place  to  be  reached,  and  trembling  in  apprehen- 
sion of  it.  A  still  stronger  metaphor  is  used  as  to  the  next  place.  Gibeah 
of  Saul — so  called  because  it  was  his  birth-place  and  residence,  and  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  others  of  the  same  name — is  fled.  There  is  here  a  rapid 
but  marked  climax.     While  Ramah  trembles,  Gibeah  flees. 

V.  30.  To  terror  and  flight  he  now  adds  an  audible  expression  of  dis- 
tress, representing  one  place  as  crying,  another  as  listening,  and  according 
to  some  writers,  a  third  as  responding.  At  the  same  time  he  exchanges  the 
language  of  description  for  that  of  direct  personal  address.  Cry  aloud  daugh- 
ter Gallim  (or  daughter  of  Gallim),  hearken  Laishah,  ah  poor  Anathoth  ! 
The  site  of  Gallim  is  no  longer  known,  but  it  was  no  doubt  somewhere  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Gibeah.     The  personification  is  made  more  distinct  by  the 


214  ISAIAH.  CHAP.  X. 

use  of  the  word  daughter,  whether  employed  simply  for  that  purpose  and  ap- 
plied to  the  town  itself,  as  explained  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  (Stadt  Gallim)  and 
Rosen muller  (oppidum  Gallim),  with  or  without  allusion  to  its  beauty  (Barnes) 
— or,  as  in  many  other  cases,  to  the  population,  as  an  individual.  The  Targum 
and  Augusti  read  the  name  Bath-gattim.  Grotius  and  others  render  nrt  *&tffpft 
cause  it  (thy  voice)  to  be  heard  to  Laish  (with  n  directive),  i.  e.  to  the  north- 
ern extremity  of  the  country,  where  stood  the  town  of  Dan,  anciently  called 
Laish,  and  often  coupled  with  Beersheba  to  express  the  whole  extent  of 
Canaan — or  to  Laish,  a  town  near  the  others  here  mentioned,  but  no  longer 
in  existence.  Others  suppose  the  name  to  be  Laishah,  and  govern  it  di- 
rectly by  the  verb — cause  Laishah  to  hear — but  tf*6p1  always  means  to 
listen.  Luther,  Lowth,  Augusti,  Henderson  and  Umbreit,  suppose  an  apos- 
trophe to  Laishah  itself — hearken  oh  Laishah  !  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Mau- 
rer,  and  DeWette  :  hearken  to  (or  towards)  Laish,  which  is  then  supposed 
to  be  crying  itself,  and  the  call  to  listen  is  addressed  to  Gallim  or  the 
next  place  mentioned,  which  implies  a  close  proximity.  Anathoth,  now 
Anata,  a  sacerdotal  city  of  Benjamin,  built  upon  a  broad  ridge,  an  hour  and 
a  quarter  from  Jerusalem.  Ecclesiastical  tradition  has  assigned  another  site 
to  Anathoth,  between  Jerusalem  and  Ramleh ;  but  the  true  site  has  been 
clearly  ascertained  and  fixed  by  Robinson  and  Smith  (vol.  2.  p.  109).  There 
are  still  remains  of  an  ancient  wall  of  hewn  stone,  old  foundations,  and  frag- 
ments of  columns.  It  commands  an  extensive  view,  and  from  it  the  travel- 
lers just  mentioned  beheld  several  of  the  places  here  enumerated.  Lowth 
and  Ewald  take  sr^s  as  a  verb  with  a  suffix,  Hendewerk  or  a  verb  with  a 
paragogic  letter,  meaning  answer  or  answer  her,  oh  Anathoth  !  Lowth  sup- 
posest  an  allusion  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  name,  viz.  answers,  i.  e. 
echoes  or  reverberations  from  the  hills  by  which  the  city  was  surrounded. 
Hitzig  takes  KW  as  a  proper  name  with  ft*2i  left  out  or  understood  before  it, 
of  which  ellipsis  there  are  several  examples,  and  denoting  Bethany,  now 
called  Elaziriy ah  (or  the  town  of  Lazarus)  and  situated  on  the  eastern  de- 
clivity of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  (See  Robinson's  Palestine,  vol.  2.  p.  101.) 
But  the  majority  of  writers,  old  and  new,  make  H*$*,  as  in  other  places 
where  it  occurs,  the  feminine  of  ^,poor,  afflicted,  miserable,  and  descriptive, 
not  of  its  ordinary  state,  as  a  poor  mean  village,  but  of  the  Prophet's  sym- 
pathy in  view  of  the  danger  with  which  Anathoth  was  threatened.  The 
introduction  of  the  epithet  in  this  case  only  may  perhaps  be  ascribed  to  a 
designed  paronomasia  between  the  cognate  forms  fpss  and  rvir52.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  adjective,  though  certainly  unusual,  is  not  unparalleled,  there 
being  instances  enough  to  justify  its  explanation  as  a  case  of  emphatic  in- 
version. These  two  words  are  construed  as  an  independent  clause  by  Doe- 
derlein  (misera  est  Anathoth),  which  Gesenius  thinks  admissible,  although 
he  prefers  the  vocative  construction  of  the  Vulgate  (paupercula  Anathoth!). 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X.  215 


V.  31.  Madmenah  wanders  (or  removes  from  her  place),  the  inhabitants 
of Gebim  flee  (or  cause  to  flee  i.  e.  carry  off  their  goods).  These  places  are 
no  longer  in  existence,  nor  are  they  mentioned  elsewhere.  The  Madmen 
spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  (48:  2),  was  a  town  of  Moab,  and  Madmannah 
(Josh.  15:  21)  was  too  far  south.  In  this  verse,  for  the  first  time,  the  in- 
habitants are  expressly  mentioned  and  distinguished  from  the  place  itself. 
But  Hiller  (in  his  Onomasticon)  makes  *%Q*  a  part  of  the  proper  name 
(Joshcbehaggebim),  and  Jerome,  on  the  contrary,  makes  Q^aa  an  appellative 
(inhabitants  of  the  hills). — The  Vulgate  renders  sirrn  by  confortamini, 
deriving  it  apparently  from  tts,  and  a  similar  version  is  given  in  the  Peshito. 
The  English  Version ,  gather  themselves  to  flee,  is  substantially  the  same 
with  that  of  Calvin  and  Junius.  According  to  Vitringa,  it  means  to  flee 
with  violence  and  haste.  Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  gives  it  the  simple 
sense  of  fleeing ;  but  in  the  second  edition  of  his  German  Version,  and  in 
his  Thesaurus,  he  explains  it  as  a  causative,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Hit- 
zig,  Maurer,  and  Knobel. 

V.  32.  This  verse  conducts  him  to  the  last  stage  of  his  progress,  to  a 
point  so  near  the  Holy  City  that  he  may  defy  it  thence.  Yet  to-day  in  i\o& 
(he  is)  to  stand  (and  there)  will  he  shake  his  hand  (a  gesture  of  menace 
and  defiance)  against  the  mountain  of  the  house  (or  daughter)  of  Zion  (i.  e. 
Mount  Zion  itself),  the  hill  of  Jerusalem. — Nob  was  a  sacerdotal  city  of 
Benjamin  near  Anathoth  (Neh.  11  :  32),  and  according  to  the  Talmud 
and  Jerome,  within  sight  of  Jerusalem.  Robinson  and  Smith  explored  the 
rid^e  of  Olivet  for  traces  of  this  town,  but  without  success.  The  Nob  here 
mentioned  is  no  doubt  the  same  that  Saul  destroyed,  although  there  was 
another  in  the  plain  towards  Lydda,  which  Jerome  seems  to  identify  with 
this. — The  first  clause  has  been  variously  explained,  according  to  the  sense 
put  upon  "rc2  as  signifying  rest  or  arrival,  and  upon  ffNrj  as  an  indefinite 
expression  for  a  day,  or  a  specific  one  for  this  day  or  to-day.  Joseph  Kim- 
chi,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Rosenmuller,  understand  the  clause  to  mean  that 
yet  to-day  (but  no  longer,  it  will  be  safe  for  the  inhabitants)  to  stay  in  Nob. 
Maurer  and  Henderson  explain  it  to  mean  yet  a  day  (or  one  day  longer,  he 
is)  to  remain  in  Nob.  Of  these  and  other  constructions  which  have  been 
proposed,  the  best  is  that  which  makes  the  clause  mean  that  to-day  (before 
to-morrow)  he  shall  stand  (i.  e.  arrive)  in  Nob — or  that  which  makes  it 
mean  yet  this  day  (he  is)  to  stand  (i.  e.  rest)  in  Nob  (before  commencing 
his  attack).  This  last,  which  is  given  by  the  latest  writers,  is  supposed  to 
be  most  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  verb. — According  to  the 
common  explanation  of  the  phrase  Y&1  rz  as  meaning  Jerusalem  itself  (vide 
supra,  ch.  1:8),  the  mountain  of  the  daughter  of  Zion  coincides  exactly 
with  the  parallel  phrase,  hill  of  Jerusalem.     The  kethib  |V»s  n^a  can  only 


216  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X. 

mean  the  temple,  taking  Zion  in  the  widest  sense  as  meaning  the  whole 
eminence  on  which  Jerusalem  was  built.  This  reading  is  sustained  by  none 
of  the  ancient  versions  but  the  Targum,  and  although  nvn  rrn  yn  is  no  un- 
usual combination,  the  phrase  jv«at  mn  V  does  not  occur  elsewhere. — In  this 
verse  the  Targum  introduces  a  description  of  Sennacherib's  army,  and  a 
soliloquy  of  Sennacherib  himself,  neither  of  which  has  the  slightest  foundation 
in  the  original. 

V.  33.  To  the  triumphant  march  and  proud  defiance  now  succeeds 
abruptly  the  tremendous  downfall  of  the  enemy  himself,  in  describing 
which  the  Prophet  resumes  the  figure  dropped  at  v.  19,  and  represents  the 
catastrophe  as  the  sudden  and  violent  prostration  of  a  forest.  Behold,  the 
Lord,  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  (is)  lopping  (or  about  to  lop)  the  branch  (of  this 
great  tree)  with  terror  (or  tremendous  violence),  and  the  (trees)  high  of 
stature  (shall  be)  felled,  and  the  lofty  ones  brought  low.  According  to 
Knobel,  the  excision  of  the  ornamental  crown  or  head-dress  of  the  tree  is 
mentioned  first,  because  the  destroying  power  is  to  be  conceived  as  darting 
down  from  heaven  like  a  thunderbolt,  not  creeping  upwards  from  the  earth, 
like  the  spreading  fire  in  v.  17,  and  in  the  same  verse  of  the  foregoing  chapter. 
Jerome  applies  these  two  last  verses  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  conse- 
quent downfall  of  the  Jewish  state  ;  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  these  interpre- 
tations, although  recommended  by  a  seeming  coherence  with  the  following- 
chapter,  are  at  variance  with  the  foregoing  context,  where  Sennacherib's 
invasion  is  described,  and  with  the  scope  of  the  whole  passage,  which  is  to 
console  the  Jews  in  viewr  of  that  event. — iisn,  when  followed  by  an  active  par- 
ticiple, commonly  indicates  a  proximate  futurity,  at  least  with  respect  to  the 
perceptions  of  the  writer. — According  to  Kimchi,  the  divine  names  introduced 
imply  that  Sennacherib  had  hitherto  supposed  himself  to  be  without  a  mas- 
ter, but  was  now  to  learn  his  error. — Hendewerk  supplies  appears  before 
S]30a  ;  but  it  is  simpler  and  therefore  better  to  supply  the  present  of  the 
verb  to  be. — rnaa  (from  inb  to  adorn)  means  an  ornamental  branch,  or  the 
branches  considered  as  the  beauty  of  the  tree. — ns'isa  properly  means 
terror,  and  in  this  case  sudden  and  terrific  violence.  It  is  more  vigor- 
ously rendered  by  Henderson  (a  tremendous  blow),  and  Lowth  (a  dread- 
ful crash).  The  a  denotes  not  so  much  the  manner  as  the  means,  not 
only  violently,  but  by  violence.  Lofty  of  stature  is  not  to  be  applied  to 
men  directly,  as  descriptive  either  of  their  pride  or  their  appearance,  but  to 
trees,  as  representing  the  Assyrians  in  general  or  their  chief  men  in  particu- 
lar. For  the  same  cause,  dtiaa  should  not  be  rendered  haughty,  an  epithet 
which  cannot  be  applied  to  trees,  but  high  or  lofty. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X.  217 

V.  34.  And  he  (Jehoyah)  skill  cut  down  (or  away)  the  thickets  of  the 
forest  (the  Assyrian  army)  with  iron,  (i.e.  with  an  instrument  of  iron,  as 
an  axe),  and  this  Lebanon  (this  wooded  mountain,  this  enormous  forest, 
still  referring  to  the  host  of  the  Assyrians)  with  (or  by)  a  mighty  one.  It 
it  is  clear  that  the  iron  of  this  verse  and  the  fire  of  v.  17  denote  one  and 
the  same  thing,  both  implying  that  the  forest  was  to  perish,  not  by  slow 
decay,  but  by  sudden  violence,  which  shows  the  absurdity  of  giving  a  spe- 
cific sense  to  all  the  particulars  in  such  a  picture.  Thus  the  thickets  are 
probably  mentioned  only  to  complete  the  picture  of  a  forest  totally  destroyed, 
though  Kimchi  understands  this  as  an  emblem  of  Sennacherib's  counsellors, 
by  whose  devices  he  had  been  entangled,  while  Grotius,  Vitringa,  and 
others,  make  it  signify  the  common  soldiers,  as  distinguished  from  the  chiefs, 
before  described  as  trees,  and  Hitzig  applies  it  to  the  whole  mixed  multi- 
tude of  the  Assyrians.  The  general  figure  of  a  forest  is  made  more  specific 
by  referring  to  Lebanon,  a  mountain  celebrated  for  its  woods.  Ezekiel 
represents  Sennacherib  himself  as  a  cedar  of  Lebanon  (Ezek.  31  :  3).  The 
name  is  not  here  put  for  the  land  of  Israel,  of  which  Mount  Lebanon  was 
the  northern  boundary,  nor  for  Jerusalem  or  the  temple,  in  allusion  to  the 
cedar-wood  employed  in  their  construction. — Calvin  and  others  understand 
"nnxa  as  an  adverbial  phrase,  meaning  mightily  or  violently ;  but  most 
interpreters  explain  it  to  mean  by  a  mighty  one.  This  is  applied  by  Gese- 
nius  and  Maurer  to  God  himself — by  Cocceius,  Schmidius,  Alting  and  J.  D. 
Michaelisj  to  Nebuchadnezzar — by  Grotius,  to  the  son  of  Sennacherib  who 
slew  him — by  several  of  the  Rabbins  to  the  destroying  angel — by  Rosen- 
muller  and  Hitzig  to  the  Messiah — by  Vitringa  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  to  the 
Messiah  and  the  angel  considered  as  identical.  To  these  interpretations 
may  be  added,  as  a  mere  suggestion,  that  'WMJ  is  possibly  an  epithet  descrip- 
tive of  bpa  in  the  preceding  clause — and  he  shall  cut  down  the  thickets  of 
the  forest  ivith  iron  (i.  e.  with  the  axe),  and  this  Lebanon  shall  fall  by  a 
mighty  one  (i.  e.  by  a  mighty  axe).  This  would  be  perfectly  in  keeping 
with  the  figurative  cast  of  the  whole  sentence,  while  at  the  same  time  it 
would  leave  the  application  of  the  terms  as  open  as  it  can  be  upon  any 
other  supposition. — r^3  is  taken  as  a  passive  form  by  Luther,  J.  D.  Michae- 
lis, Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  DeWette,  Ewald.  Its  agreement  with  the  plural 
■;2D  may  in  that  case  either  be  resolved  into  a  common  license  of  Hebrew 
syntax,  or  explained  by  supposing  the  agreement  to  be  really  with  -15?.  It 
is  best,  however,  to  take  c^a  as  a  Piel  of  less  usual  form  (Nordheimer 
<§>  238)  governing  ^0  and  indefinitely  construed  (one  shall  cut),  or  agree- 
ing with  Jehovah  understood. 


218  ISAIAH.   CHAP.  XI. 


CHAPTER  XL 

This  chapter  is  occupied  with  promises  of  restoration  and  deliverance, 
external  safety  and  internal  peace,  to  God's  own  people,  as  contrasted  with 
the  ruin  previously  threatened  to  their  enemies.  Borrowing  his  imagery 
from  the  fall  of  the  Assyrian  forest,  just  before  predicted,  the  Prophet  repre- 
sents a  shoot  as  springing  from  the  prostrate  trunk  of  Jesse,  or  rather  from 
his  roots,  and  invested  by  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  with  all  the  necessary 
attributes  of  a  righteous  judge  and  ruler,  vs.  1-4.  The  pacific  effect  of  the 
Messiah's  reign  is  then  described  by  the  beautiful  figure  of  wild  and  domestic 
animals  dwelling  and  feeding  together,  and  of  children  unhurt  by  the  most 
venomous  reptiles  ;  to  which  is  added  an  express  prediction  that  all  mutual 
injuries  shall  cease  in  consequence  of  the  universal  prevalence  of  the  know- 
ledge of  Jehovah,  vs.  5-9.  To  these  figures  borrowed  from  the  animal 
creation,  the  Prophet  now  adds  others  from  the  history  of  Israel,  but  in- 
tended to  express  the  same  idea.  The  Messiah  is  here  represented  as  a 
signal  set  up  to  the  nations,  gathering  the  outcasts  of  his  people  from  all 
quarters,  and  uniting  them  again  into  one  undivided  body,  free  from  all 
sectional  and  party  animosities,  vs.  10-13.  Under  figures  of  the  same  kind, 
the  triumph  of  the  church  is  then  represented  as  a  conquest  over  the  old 
enemies  of  Israel,  especially  those  nearest  to  the  Holy  Land  ;  while  the 
interposition  of  God's  power  to  effect  this  and  the  preceding  promises  is 
vividly  described  as  a  division  of  the  Red  Sea  and  Euphrates,  and  a  deliver- 
ance from  Egypt  and  Assyria,  vs.  14-16. 

The  evidently  figurative  character  of  some  parts  of  this  chapter  seems  to 
furnish  a  sufficient  key  to  the  interpretation  of  those  parts  which  in  them- 
selves would  be  more  doubtful.' 

V.  1.  The  figure  of  the  preceding  verse  is  continued  but  applied  to  a 
new  subject,  the  downfall  of  the  house  of  David  and  the  Jewish  state, 
which  is  contrasted  with  the  downfall  of  Assyria.  The  Assyrian  forest  was 
to  fall  forever,  but  that  of  Judah  was  to  sprout  again.  And  there  shall 
come  forth  a  twig  (or  shoot)  from  the  stock  (or  stump)  of  Jesse,  and  a 
branch  from  his  roots  shall  grow.  According  to  Aben  Ezra,  Hendewerk 
and  others,  this  refers  to  Hezekiah  exclusively,  and  according  to  Grotius  as 
a  type  of  Christ.  But  Hezekiah  was  already  born,  and  the  house  from 
which  he  sprang  was  not  in  the  condition  here  described.  Others  refer  it 
to  Zerubbabel,  and  others  to  the  Maccabees,  who  were  not  even  descend- 
ants of  Jesse.     The  Targum  explicitly  applies  it  to  the  Messiah    (ss^e 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI.  219 

MTOft).  Eichhorn,  Bauer,  Rosenmiillc -r,  Gesenius,  DeWettc,  Hitzig,  Ewald, 
a  No  apply  it  to  an  ideal  Messiah  whom  Isaiah  looked  for.  The  modern 
Jews  of  course  suppose  it  to  be  yet  unfulfilled.  The  only  application  of 
the  passage  that  can  be  sustained  is  that  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  sprang  from 
the  family  of  Jesse  when  reduced  to  its  lowest  estate,  and  to  whom  alone 
the  subsequent  description  is  literally  applicable.  Abarbenel  objects  that 
Christ  was  not  a  descendant  of  Jesse  unless  he  was  really  the  son  of 
Joseph.  But  even  if  Mary  had  been  of  another  tribe,  her  marriage  would 
entitle  her  offspring  to  be  reckoned  as  a  Son  of  David  ;  much  more  when 
she  herself  was  of  the  same  lineage.  It  is  enough  to  know,  however,  that 
the  fact  of  Christ's  descent  from  David  is  not  only  repeatedly  affirmed,  but 
constantly  presupposed  in  the  New  Testament,  as  a  fact  too  notorious  to  be 
called  in  question  or  to  call  for  proof. — *ta  is  not  the  seed  (Aben  Ezra)  nor 
the  root  (Septuagint)  nor  even  the  trunk  or  whole  stem  of  a  tree  (Gesenius, 
Hitzig,  Hendewerk),  but  the  stump  or  part  remaining  above  ground  when 
the  tree  is  felled,  as  translated  by  Aquila,  Symmachus  and  Theodotion 
(y.onuov),  and  explained  by  Kimchi  (nfo  ir  t»d  ]V  ifaSO  vv).  Together 
with  the  parallel  term  roots,  it  is  an  emblem  not  of  mere  descent  or  deriva- 
tion, as  alleged  by  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk,  but  of  derivation  from  a  reduced 
and  almost  extinct  family,  as  explained  by  Calvin,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Heng- 
stenberg,  Ewald  and  Umbreit.  Jesse  is  supposed  by  Hitzig  and  Hende- 
werk to  be  named  instead  of  David  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  the  latter, 
or  of  intimating  a  correlative  descent  from  the  same  ancestor.  According 
to  Kimchi,  he  is  named  as  the  last  progenitor  before  the  family  attained  to 
royal  rank  ;  according  to  Umbreit,  simply  to  indicate  the  antiquity  of  the 
house.  Vitringa's  explanation  is  more  probable,  viz.  because  Jesse  resided 
at  Bethlehem  where  Christ  was  to  be  born,  and  because  the  family  is  here 
considered  as  reduced  to  the  same  obscure  condition  in  which  Jesse  lived, 
as  contrasted  with  that  to  which  David  was  exalted,  and  which  the  mention 
of  the  latter  would  naturally  have  recalled  to  mind.  This  last  reason  is 
also  given  by  Calvin  and  Hengstenberg. 

V.  2.  The  person,  whose  origin  and  descent  are  metaphorically  de- 
scribed in  the  preceding  verse,  is  here  described  by  his  personal  qualities, 
as  one  endowed  with  the  highest  intellectual  and  moral  gifts  by  the  direct 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  upon  him  shall  rest  the  Spirit  of  Jeho- 
vah, a  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  a  Spirit  of  counsel  and 
strength,  a  Spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  Jehovah.  The  Targum 
seems  to  explain  rrjn'j  n«n  as  the  first  item  in  the  catalogue,  meaning  the 
spirit  of  prophecy  or  inspiration.  Gataker  takes  it  as  the  cause  of  which 
the  others  are  effects.  But  Kimchi  more  correctly  understands  it  as  a 
general  designation  of  the  self-same  spirit  which  is  afterwards  described  in* 


220 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI. 


detail.  So  Saadias  and  Aben  Ezra  understand  it — c  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah 
which  is  a  Spirit  of  wisdom'  etc.  Hengstenberg  understands  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah,  a  stronger  expression  than  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  former  having  more 
explicit  reference  to  the  government  and  edification  of  the  church.  Gese- 
nius,  as  usual,  explains  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  as  an  influence,  but  it  obvi- 
ously means  a  person.  The  following  genitives  do  not  denote  qualities  but 
effects  of  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit  of  Jehovah  is  not  here  described  as  being 
himself  wise  etc.  but  as  the  author  of  wisdom  in  others.  This  is  evident 
from  the  last  clause,  where  the  fear  of  Jehovah  cannot  be  an  attribute  of  his 
Spirit,  but  must  be  a  fruit  of  his  influence.  The  qualities  enumerated  are 
not  to  be  confounded  as  mere  synonymes,  nor  on  the  other  hand  distin- 
guished with  metaphysical  precision.  That  the  latter  process  must  be  an 
arbitrary  one,  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  any  two  or  more  attempts  to 
define  the  terms  precisely.  On  the  same  etymological  basis  have  been 
founded  the  most  opposite  interpretations.  Thus  the  gift  of  prophetic  in- 
spiration is  supposed  to  be  intended  both  by  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  (Vitrin- 
ga)  and  the  Spirit  of  counsel  (Reinhard),  both  suppositions  being  perfectly 
gratuitous.  When  Hengstenberg,  who  takes  a  just  view  of  the  principle  on 
which  the  passage  ought  to  be  interpreted,  departs  so  far  from  it  in  practice 
as  to  attempt  a  precise  discrimination  between  ftgsn  and  n^a,  he  proposes 
one  directly  opposite  to  that  proposed  by  Hendewerk,  though  both  agree 
that  one  relates  to  theoretical  and  the  other  to  practical  wisdom.  The 
truth  is  that  none  of  these  terms  is  entirely  exclusive  of  the  others.  Wis- 
dom, understanding,  the  knowledge  of  God,  the  fear  of  God,  are  all  familiar 
scriptural  descriptions  of  religion  or  piety  in  general.  Wisdom  and  under- 
standing are  often  joined  as  equivalent  expressions.  The  latter,  according 
to  its  etymology,  strictly  denotes  the  power  of  discernment  or  discrimination. 
Both  are  applied  to  theoretical  and  practical  wisdom,  and  especially  to 
moral  and  religious  subjects.  Counsel  and  strength  are  the  ability  to  plan 
and  the  ability  to  execute,  neither  of  which  can  avail  without  the  other. 
The  knowledge  of  God  does  not  in  itself  mean  the  love  of  him  (Vitringa), 
although  it  may  infer  it  as  a  necessary  consequence.  The  correct  know- 
ledge of  him  certainly  produces  godly  fear  or  holy  reverence,  and  the  two 
are  probably  put  here  for  religion  in  the  general,  and  are  so  explained  in 
the  Septuagint  (jvcoaecog  y.al  evasfisiag)  and  Vulgate  (scientiae  et  pietatis). 
The  six  attributes  here  enumerated  are  grouped  in  three  distinct  pairs,  the 
first  and  last  of  which,  as  Hengstenberg  supposes,  have  respect  to  personal 
qualities,  the  second  to  such  as  are  official  ;  but  Ewald  distinguishes  the 
first  as  theoretical,  the  second  as  practical,  the  third  as  spiritual  or  religious. 
Hendewerk  ingeniously  and  earnestly  maintains  that  all  these  epithets  relate 
to  Hezekiah  and  are  verified  in  his  history — the  wisdom  in  2  Kings  18:7, 
he  acted  wisely  (^su)"1)  whithersoever  he  went — the  spirit  of  counsel  and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI.  221 

might  in  2  Kings  18:  20,  and  in  his  subduing  the  Philistines  (2  Kings  18:  8) 
etc.  The  simple  statement  of  this  exposition  is  sufficient  to  refute  it.  The 
only  person  in  whom  the  terms  of  this  prediction  have  been  verified  is  Jesus 
Christ,  whose  wisdom  displayed  itself  in  early  life  and  is  expressly  ascribed 
to  a  special  divine  influence  ;  who  proved  himself  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart ;  whose  ministry  was  not  only  characterized  by  forti- 
tude and  boldness,  but  attested  by  miracles  and  mighty  deeds ;  whose 
knowledge- of  divine  things  far  surpassed  that  of  all  other  men  ;  and  who 
was  himself  a  living  model  of  all  piety.  This  application  is  maintained, 
not  only  by  the  older  Christian  writers,  and  by  Hengstenberg  and  Hender- 
son, but  also  by  Umbreit.  It  is  an  old  opinion  that  the  seven  spirits  of  the 
Apocalypse  have  reference  to  the  sevenfold  rvn  of  this  passage. 

V.  3.  The  Messiah  is  now  described  as  taking  pleasure  in  true  piety 
and  recognizing  its  existence  by  an  infallible  sagacity  or  power  of  discerning 
good  and  evil,  which  would  render  him  superior  to  the  illusions  of  the  senses 
and  to  every  external  influence.  This  faculty  is  figuratively  described  as  an 
exquisite  olfactory  perception,  such  as  enables  its  possessor  to  distinguish  be- 
tween different  odours.  And  his  sense  of  smelling  (i.  e.  his  power  of  per- 
ception, with  a  seeming  reference  to  the  pleasure  it  affords  him)  shall  be  ex- 
ercised in  (or  upon)  the  fear  of  Jehovah  (as  an  attribute  of  others),  and 
(being  thus  infallible)  not  by  the  sight  (or  according  to  the  sighf)  of  his 
eyes  shall  he  judge,  and  not  by  the  hearing  of  his  ears  shall  he  decide.  The 
Septuagint  (followed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Doederlein,  Hensler,  Koppe, 
Kuinol,  Cube)  takes  irmn  as  a  preterite  with  a  suffix,  and  explains  the  verb 
as  meaning  to  fill  with  the  Spirit  or  inspire.  Forerius,  Clericus,  Herder, 
Vanderpalm,  Hendewerk  and  Ewald,  make  it  mean  to  breathe.  '  His 
breath  is  in  the  fear  of  Jehovah.'  Nihil  nisi  pietatem  spirabit  (Fore- 
rius). Reinhart  makes  it  mean  to  blow,  as  an  expression  of  anger.  But 
the  only  sense  confirmed  by  usage  is  to  smell— his  smell  is  in  the  fear  of 
Jehovah.  Schmidius  applies  this  to  the  sweet-smelling  savour  of  our  Lord's 
atoning  sacrifice,  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  to  his  sacerdotal  functions.  Sanctius 
and  Paulus  understand  it  to  denote  his  odour  as  perceived  by  others.  But 
it  rather  denotes  actively  his  smelling  or  olfactory  perception.  This  is  un- 
derstood by  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  Eichhorn,  Henderson  and  Umbreit,  as  a  figure 
for  discernment  or  discrimination  between  false  and  true  religion  ;  and  by 
Rosenmuller,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  DeWette,  Barnes  and  Knobel,  for 
the  act  of  taking  pleasure  as  the  sense  does  in  a  grateful  odour.  But  these 
two  meanings  are  perfectly  consistent,  and  the  phrase  is  therefore  best  ex- 
plained by  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Lowth  and  Hengstenberg,  as  comprehending 
an  infallible  discernment  and  a  feeling  of  complacency.  He  shall  take  de- 
light in  goodness,  and  be  able  to  distinguish  it  without  fail  from  its  counter- 


222  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI. 

feits.  Gataker  understands  hWWV»a  as  denoting  that  this  power  of  dis- 
cernment should  be  exercised  in  sacred,  not  in  secular  affairs  ;  Junius,  Pis- 
cator,  and  Vatablus,  that  it  should  be  joined  with  or  attended  by  the  fear  of 
God.  But  the  a  is  really  a  connective,  which  the  verb  min  commonly 
takes  after  it,  and  adds  no  more  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  than  the  Eng- 
lish prepositions  when  we  speak  of  smelling  to  or  ofd.  thing  instead  of  simply 
smelling  it.  The  meaning  therefore  must  be  that  the  fear  of  God  or  piety 
in  others  would  itself  be  the  object  upon  which  this  faculty  was  to  exert 
itself.  Grotius,  Clericus,  Gesenius,  and  Henderson,  understand  by  the 
heaiing  of  his  ears  reports  or  rumours,  Hitzig  and  others  complaints  and 
arguments  before  a  judge,  both  which  interpretations  are  too  much  restricted. 
The  sight  of  the  eyes  and  the  hearing  of  the  ears  are  put  for  the  testimony 
of  those  senses  by  which  men  are  chiefly  governed  in  their  judgments.  The 
same  erroneous  view  of  the  passage,  which  led  Hitzig  to  restrict  the 
hearing  of  the  ear  to  forensic  litigation,  has  led  Barnes  and  Umbreit  to 
apply  the  whole  of  the  last  clause  to  judicial  partiality  or  respect  of  persons. 
Hendewerk  extends  this  application  only  to  the  sight  of  the  eye,  and  makes  the 
hearing  of  the  ear  relate  to  actual  deception  of  the  judge  by  arguments  or  testi- 
mony. All  this  is  implicitly  included  in  the  text,  but  it  includes  much  more. 
It  is  no  doubt  true  that  as  a  judge  the  Messiah  would  be  equally  exempt  from 
all  disposition  to  favour  the  rich  and  the  great  at  the  expense  of  the  poor, 
and  from  all  liability  to  imposition  ;  but  it  is  also  true,  and  here  declared, 
that  he  should  not  judge  of  character  at  all  by  the  senses,  but  by  an  infallible 
sagacity  or  power  of  discerning  good  and  evil. — According  to  Cocceius, 
the  mention  of  eyes  and  ears  implies  the  real  humanity  of  the  Messiah. 
Aben  Ezra  explains  the  clause  to  mean  that  he  would  rely  upon  the 
sense  of  smelling  rather  than  that  of  sight  or  hearing,  and  Kimchi 
even  says  instead  of  sight  and  hearing.  This  interpretation  is  connected 
with  an  old  Jewish  notion,  that  the  Messiah  may  be  known,  when  he 
appears,  by  his  power  to  distinguish  moral  character  through  the  sense  of 
smell.  In  this  way  the  famous  false  Messiah  Bar  Kokba  (son  of  a  star),  is 
said  to  have  been  proved  an  impostor,  and  his  name  changed  to  Bar  Kozba 
(son  of  a  lie).  The  original  authorities  are  cited  by  Gill  in  his  Commentary 
on  this  place.  Traces  of  this  opinion  have  been  found  by  some  in  the  New 
Testament  (Luke  7 :  39.  John  1  :  49),  but  on  very  insufficient  grounds. 
Grotius  applies  the  verse  to  Hezekiah  in  the  following  manner.  His  conso- 
lation ('in'HSi)  shall  be  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord  (i.  e.  afforded  by  religion). 
He  shall  not  judge  according  to  the  sight  of  his  eyes  (i.  e.  shall  not  despair 
even  under  the  most  discouraging  appearances).  He  shall  not  reason  (n^si"1) 
according  to  the  hearing  of  his  ears  (i.  e.  he  shall  draw  no  conclusions  from 
the  rumours  that  may  reach  him,  but  believe  the  declarations  of  the  Pro- 
phets).    Thus  explained,  the  passage  is  certainly  an   accurate  description 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XI. 

of  that  good  king's  conduct  during  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  invasion,  fa 
the  English  Version  and  hy  Lowth,  n^i->  is  explained  as  meaning  to 
reprove — by  Luther,  Junius,  Clericus  and  llengstenberg,  to  punish — hy  the 
Septuagint,  Vulgate,  Calvin,  Cocceius,  and  Vitringa,  to  convince  or  convict 
— but  by  J.  H.  Michat -lis,  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  others,  to  decide — and  as 
this  includes  the  others,  and  makes  the  parallelism  more  exact,  it  is  undoubt- 
edly to  be  preferred. 

V.  4.  The  Messiah,  as  a  righteous  judge,  is  now  exhibited  in  contrast 
with  the  unjust  magistrates  of  Judah,  as  described  in  ch.  1  :  23.  10  :  2.  5: 
23.  And  he  shall  judge  in  righteousness  the  weak  (or  poor)  and  do  justice 
with  equity  (or  impartiality)  to  the  meek  of  the  earth,  and  shall  smite  the 
earth  with  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  with  the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  slay 
the  wicked. — By  the  earth  to  be  smitten,  Gesenius  and  others  understand 
the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  But  the  expression  seems  at  least  to  include 
the  smiting  of  the  earth  itself,  which  is  elsewhere  represented  as  the  object  of 
God's  wrath,  and  is  here  described  as  cursed  on  man's  account.  By  a 
breath  of  his  lips,  some  understand  a  sentence  of  death,  or  command  to 
kill  (Cocceius,  Clericus,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk) — others  a  natural  expression 
of  anger  (Gesenius,  DeWette) — others  a  secret,  imperceptible  influence, 
producing  conviction  (Kimchi,  Abarbenel,  Vitringa).  But  the  true  sense 
seems  to  be  the  one  expressed  by  Calvin  and  Ewald — a  mere  word,  or 
a  mere  breath,  as  something  even  less  than  a  word,  and  yet  sufficient  to 
effect  his  purpose.  The  Targum  adds  to  sis^  the  word  biVwa,  used  by 
the  old  Jews  to  denote  the  last  great  enemy  of  their  religion,  who  is  to  kill 
Messiah  the  son  of  Joseph,  but  to  be  killed  by  Messiah  the  son  of  David. 
Paul,  in  1  Thess.  2  :  8,  applies  these  words,  with  little  change,  to  the 
destruction  of  Antichrist  at  the  coming  of  Christ.  It  does  not  follow,  how- 
ever, that  this  is  a  specific  and  exclusive  prophecy  of  that  event,  but  only 
that  it  comprehends  it,  as  it  evidently  does.  If  one  of  the  Messiah's  works 
is  to  destroy  his  enemies,  it  cannot  be  fulfilled  without  the  destruction  of  the 
last  and  greatest  of  those  enemies  to  whom  the  Scriptures  make  allusion. 
But  as  Hengstenberg  observes,  if  the  promise  in  the  first  clause  is  of  general 
import,  the  threatening  in  the  last  must  be  coextensive  with  it. 

V.  5.  And  righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his  loins,  and  faithful- 
ness the  girdle  of  his  reins,  i.  e.  he  shall  be  clothed  or  invested  with  these 
attributes,  and  they  shall  adhere  closely  to  him.  The  metaphor  of  putting 
on  or  clothing  one's  self  with  moral  attributes  is  not  unfrequent  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  girdle  is  mentioned  as  an  essential  part  of  oriental  dress,  and 
that  which  keeps  the  others  in  their  proper  place,  and  qualifies  the  wearer 
for  exertion.     Calvin  supposes  a  particular  reference  to  decoration,  and 


224  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI. 

Hendewerk  to  the  military  use  of  the  girdle  as  a  sword-belt.  Lowth 
imagines  TWK  in  one  of  the  clauses  to  be  an  error  for  ^n,  because  all  the 
ancient  versions  vary  the  expression  except  that  of  Symmachus,  and  because 
the  common  text  is  an  inelegant  tautology.  But  Gesenius  gives  a  number 
of  analogous  examples  from  this  very  book,  and  the  recurrence  of  the  word 
has  in  fact  a  good  effect,  and  none  the  less  because  the  other  words  are 
varied.  According  to  Hendewerk,  the  insertion  of  nian  would  do  violence 
to  usage,  because  that  is  a  generic  term  for  all  belts  or  girdles,  including  the 
-nts  or  military  sword-belt,  the  "nap  or  female  sash,  and  the  usnx  or  sacer- 
dotal cincture.  These  distinctions  are  not  noticed  in  the  lexicons.  The 
Septuagint  takes  *iH**  in  both  clauses  as  a  passive  participle  ("^tn)  agreeing 
with  the  subject  of  the  verb  (i^mafisvog).  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  of  this 
verse  makes  it  mean,  that  the  Messiah  would  be  constantly  surrounded  by 
just  and  faithful  men. 

V.  6.  Here,  as  in  ch.  2 :  4  and  9 :  5,  6,  universal  peace  is  represented 
as  a  consequence  of  the  Messiah's  reign,  but  under  a  new  and  striking 
figure. — And  the  wolf  shall  dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie 
down  with  the  Jcid,  and  the  calf  and  young  lion  and  failing  together,  and 
a  little  child  shall  lead  them.  The  W,  so  called  from  its  spots,  includes 
the  leopard  and  the  panther,  and  perhaps  the  tiger.  The  TO*  is  a  lion  old 
enough  to  roar  and  raven.  The  RB^*1,  rendered  ox  by  the  Septuagint  and 
Peshito,  and  explained  to  be  a  particular  kind  of  wild  ox  by  Aben  Ezra  and 
Bochart,  denotes  more  probably  any  fatted  beast,  and  may  here  be  men- 
tioned because  beasts  of  prey  select  such  as  their  victims.  The  wolf  is 
introduced  as  the  natural  enemy  of  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard,  as  Bochart 
tries  to  prove  from  Aelian,  sustains  the  same  relation  to  the  kid.  "fla  does 
not  mean  to  dwell  in  general,  but  to  sojourn  as  a  stranger  or  a  guest,  and 
implies  that  the  lamb  should,  as  it  were,  receive  the  wolf  into  its  home. 
The  verb  y^ft  is  specially  appropriated  to  express  the  lying  down  of  sheep 
and  other  animals.  Here  it  may  denote  that  the  leopard,  accustomed  to 
crouch  while  waiting  for  its  prey,  shall  now  lie  down  peaceably  beside  it ; 
or  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  restlessness  and  fleetness  of  the  wild 
beast,  now  to  be  succeeded  by  the  quiet  habits  of  the  ruminating  species. 
The  unusual  construction  tm  Sftb  has  led  some  to  take  a  in  the  sense 
of  among,  and  others  to  regard  arta  as  a  noun  meaning  leader  or  conductor. 
But  the  truth  is  that  the  insertion  of  3  between  words  which  seem  to  cohere 
most  closely,  is  a  common  idiom  of  Hebrew  syntax.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  9 : 
1,  2.)  *ri3  is  properly  to  lead,  but  may  include  the  idea  of  driving,  as  a 
shepherd  does  his  flock. — Some  supply  the  substantive  verb  with  tjrn — 
shall  be  together — but  a  simpler  construction  is  to  connect  it  with  the  verb 
in  the  preceding  clause — the  leopard  and  the  kid  shall  lie  down  together, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI.  828 

the  calf,  the  young  lion,  and  the  fatted  beast  together. — Jerome  speaks  of 
the  Jews  and  some  judaizing  Christians  as  believing  that  a  literal  change  in 
the  nature  of  wild  beasts  is  here  predicted.  Kimchi  regards  it  as  a  promise 
of  immunity  from  \\ rild  beasts,  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  Jews  alone  in  the  days  of 
the  Messiah.  Most  Christian  writers,  ancient  and  modern,  with  Aben 
Ezra  and  Maimonides  among  the  Jews,  explain  the  prophecy  as  wholly 
metaphorical,  and  descriptive  of  the  peace  to  be  enjoyed  by  God's  people — 
according  to  Grotius,  after  Sennacherib's  retreat — but  according  to  the  rest, 
under  the  new  dispensation.  Cocceius  and  Clericus  apply  the  passage  to 
the  external  peace  between  the  church  and  the  world,  but  it  is  commonly 
regarded  as  descriptive  of  the  change  wrought  by  Christianity  in  wicked 
men  themselves.  Vitringa  gives  a  specific  meaning  to  each  figure  in  the 
landscape,  making  the  lamb,  the  calf,  and  the  fatted  beast,  denote  suc- 
cessive stages  in  the  Christian's  progress,  the  lion  open  enemies,  the  leopard 
more  disguised  ones,  the  wolf  treacherous  and  malignant  ones,  the  little 
child  the  ministry.  This  kind  of  exposition  not  only  mars  the  beauty  but 
obscures  the  real  meaning  of  the  prophecy.  Calvin  and  Hengstenberg 
suppose  the  passage  to  include  a  promise  of  a  future  change  in  the  material 
creation,  restoring  it  to  its  original  condition  (Rom.  8:  19-22),  while  they 
agree  with  other  writers  in  regarding  the  pacific  effects  of  true  religion  as 
the  primary  subject  of  the  prophecy. 

V.  7.  And  the  cow  and  the  bear  shall  feed — together  shall  their  young  lie 
down — and  the  lion  like  the  ox  shall  eat  straw.  According  to  Vitringa,  there 
is  here  a  climax,  not  in  form  but  in  sense ;  not  only  shall  the  nobler  lion  be 
at  peace  with  the  domesticated  animals,  but  even  the  less  generous  and 
more  ferocious  bear.  The  Septuagint  and  Peshito  repeat  tin^  in  which 
they  are  followed  by  most  interpreters,  and  Lowth  inserts  it  in  the  text. 
But  according  to  Hitzig,  the  wonder  is  not  that  the  bear  grazes  with  the 
cow,  but  that  it  grazes  at  all,  the  cow  being  mentioned  only  to  show  what 
kind  of  pasture  is  intended.  The  sense  will  then  be  simply  that  the  bear 
grazes  like  the  coiv,  the  very  form  of  expression  used  in  the  last  clause  with 
respect  to  the  lion.  He  mentions  straw  as  a  common  kind  of  fodder — 
hordei  stipulam  bubns  gratissimam — palea  plures  gentium  profoeno  utuntur. 
(Pliny,  Nat.  Hist,  xviii.  30.)  The  lion's  eating  straw  implies  not  only 
cohabitation  with  domestic  cattle,  but  a  change  of  his  carnivorous  habits. 
Vitringa  carries  out  his  allegorical  hypothesis  by  making  the  cow  the  repre- 
sentative of  Christians  who  have  reached  the  point  of  giving  as  well  as 
receiving  instruction,  of  yielding  milk  as  well  as  drinking  it.  He  apologizes 
for  the  use  of  straw  as  an  emblem  of  divine  truth  or  the  gospel,  on  the 
ground  that  its  doctrines  are  so  simple  and  uninviting  to  fastidious  appetites. 
The  arbitrary  character  of  such  interpretations  is  betrayed  by  Gill's  remark 

15 


226  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI. 

that  straw  here  means  true  doctrine,  elsewhere  false  (1  Cor.  3:  12).  The 
truth  is  that  neither  the  straw  nor  the  lion  means  any  thing  by  itself;  but 
the  lion's  eating  straw  denotes  a  total  change  of  habit,  and  indeed  of  nature, 
and  is  therefore  a  fit  emblem  for  the  revolution  which  the  gospel,  in  propor- 
tion to  its  influence,  effects  in  the  condition  of  society,  with  some  allusion 
possibly,  as  before  suggested,  to  the  ultimate  deliverance  of  the  yaiaig  or 
irrational  creation  from  that  bondage  of  corruption,  to  which,  for  man's  sake, 
it  is  now  subjected. 

V.  8.  To  express  the  idea  still  more  strongly,  venomous  serpents  are 
represented  as  innoxious,  not  to  other  beasts,  but  to  the  human  species,  and 
to  the  most  helpless  and  unthinking  of  that  species.  And  the  sucking  child 
shall  play  on  (or  over)  the  hole  of  the  asp,  and  on  the  den  of  the  basilisk  (or 
cerastes)  shall  the  weaned  child  stretch  (or  place)  its  hand. — *>n  is  omitted 
by  the  Septuagint,  and  explained  by  Ewald  as  denoting  the  feelers  of  a 
horned  snake,  and  the  same  sense  is  ascribed  to  rnsiaa  by  J.  D.  Michaelis. 
But  both  words  really  denote  a  hole  or  cavity,  ttyvfo  properly  a  light- 
hole  or  aperture  admitting  light.  Gesenius  in  his  commentary  follows 
Bochart  in  deriving  it  by  permutation  from  mis«  ;  but  in  his  Thesaurus, 
he  admits  the  derivation  from  "VNft.  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi  make  it  mean 
the  eye  of  the  serpent  itself,  and  Hitzig  the  shield  between  the  eyes  of  the 
basilisk.  The  precise  discrimination  of  the  species  of  serpents  here  referred 
to,  is  of  no  importance  to  the  exegesis.  All  that  is  necessary  to  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  verse  is  that  both  words  denote  extremely  venomous 
and  deadly  reptiles.  The  weaned  child  means  of  course  a  child  just 
weaned,  which  idea  is  expressed  in  translation  by  Vitringa  (nuper  depulsus  a 
lacte),  Lowth  (the  new-weaned  child),  and  Gesenius  (der  kaum  Entwohn- 
te).  The  parallel  terms  are  rendered  by  Henderson  the  suckling  and 
the  weanling.  According  to  Jerome,  this  verse  predicts  the  casting  out  of 
devils  by  our  Lord's  disciples  ;  according  to  Vitringa,  the  conversion  or 
destruction  of  heretical  teachers ;  while  Cocceius  makes  it  a  specific  pro- 
phecy of  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Huss,  as  the  children  who  were  to  thrust  their 
hands  into  the  den  of  the  antichristian  serpents.  It  is  really  a  mere  con- 
tinuation of  the  metaphor  begun  in  v.  7,  and  expresses,  by  an  additional 
figure,  the  change  to  be  effected  in  society  by  the  prevalence  of  true  reli- 
gion, destroying  noxious  influences  and  rendering  it  possible  to  live  in  safety. 

V.  9.  The  strong  figures  of  the  foregoing  context  are  now  "resolved  into 
literal  expressions.  They  (indefinitely,  men  in  general)  shall  not  hurt  nor 
destroy  in  all  my  holy  mountain,  because  the  land  is  full  of  the  knowledge 
of  Jehovah  (literally,  of  knowing  him)  like  the  waters  covering  the  sea. — 
Aben  Ezra  seems  to  think  that  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  must  agree  with 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI.  22* 

the  nouns  in  the  preceding  verse — they  (the  animals  just  mentioned)  shall 
not  hurt,  etc.  But  the  absence  of  the  copulative  shows  that  this  is  not  so 
much  a  direct  continuation  of  the  previous  description  as  a  summary  expla- 
nation of  it.  The  true  construction,  therefore,  is  indefinite.  Rosenmuller 
distinguishes  the  two  verbs  as  meaning  to  injure  others  and  to  injure  them- 
selves;-but  they  are  evidently  used  as  mere  equivalent  expressions.  My 
holy  mountain  does  not  mean  the  whole  land  of  Israel,  so  called  as  being 
higher  than  all  other  countries  (Kimchi) — nor  the  mountainous  part  of  it 
(Jahn),  to  which  there  could  be  no  reason  for  specially  alluding,  and  of 
which  the  singular  form  ■#]  is  not  descriptive — but  Zion,  or  Moriah,  or  the 
city  built  upon  them,  not  considered  simply  as  a  capital  city,  in  which  a 
reformation  was  particularly  needed  (Hitzig),  but  as  the  seat  of  the  true 
religion,  and  at  that  time  the  local  habitation  of  the  church.  What  was 
true  of  the  church  there  is  true  of  the  church  everywhere.  The  first  clause 
clearly  shows  that  the  foregoing  description  is  to  be  figuratively  understood. 
That  the  wolf  and  the  lamb  should  lie  down  together,  means  in  other  words, 
that  none  should  hurt  or  destroy  in  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  The  reason  is 
given  in  the  last  clause,  y^x  may  mean  the  land  of  Israel  as  the  abode  of 
the  true  religion,  and  the  whole  earth  so  far  as  the  church  was  to  become 
coextensive  with  it.  For  the  syntax  of  the  verbal  noun  with  the  accusa- 
tive, see  Gesenius  <§>  130.  1.  The  sea,  according  to  Kimchi  and  Gesenius; 
means  the  bottom  or  the  basin  of  the  sea.  The  construction  of  this  clause 
by  Luther  and  Augusti  (as  if  covered  with  the  waters  of  the  sea)  is  very 
inexact.  The  b  is  used  instead  of  the  more  usual  bs.  The  strict  sense  of 
the  words  is,  covering  with  respect  to  the  sea.  The  point  of  comparison  is 
not  the  mere  extent  of  surface  (Vatablus)  nor  the  depth  (Vitringa),  but  the 
fulness  of  the  land  to  the  extent  of  its  capacity.  This  passage  is  descriptive 
of  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  not  at  any  one  period,  but  as  a  whole.  A 
historian,  as  Vitringa  well  observes,  in  giving  a  general  description  of  the 
reign  of  David,  would  not  use  language  applicable  only  to  its  beginning. 
The  prophecy  is  therefore  one  of  gradual  fulfilment.  So  far  as  the  cause 
operates,  the  effect  follows,  and  when  the  cause  shall  operate  without 
restraint,  the  effect  will  be  complete  and  universal.  The  use  of  the  future 
in  the  first  clause  and  the  preterite  in  the  second  may  imply,  that  the  pre- 
valence of  the  knowledge  of  Jehovah  must  precede  that  of  universal  peace. 
It  is  not  till  the  land  has  been  filled  with  that  knowledge,  that  men  will 
cease  to  injure  and  destroy. — It  will  be  sufficient  to  record  without  com- 
ment, that  according  to  Cocceius  the  holy  mountain  is  the  reformed  church, 
as  the  basilisk's  den  was  the  church  of  Rome,  and  that  the  reconciliation 
here  predicted  is  a  mere  external  one  between  the  people  of  God  and  their 
oppressors. 


228  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI. 

V.  10.  Having  described  the  Messiah's  reign  and  its  effects,  he  now 
brings  his  person  into  view  again.  And  in  that  day  shall  the  root  of  Jesse 
which  (is)  standing  (or  set  up)  be  for  a  signal  to  the  nations — unto  him 
shall  the  gentiles  seek,  and  his  rest  (or  residence)  shall  be  glorious. — Al- 
most all  interpreters  take  IW]  in  the  indefinite  sense,  it  shall  be  or  come  to 
pass,  as  a  mere  idiomatic  introduction  to  what  follows,  leaving  tthto  to  be 
construed  as  a  nominative  absolute.  But  Ewald  makes  efcjtt  itself  the  sub- 
ject of  fi^rt,  which  is  a  simpler  construction. — The  root  of  Jesse  is  explained 
by  Kimchi  and  most  other  writers  to  be  put  by  metonymy  for  that  which 
grows  out  of  his  roots  and  therefore  equivalent  to  *Wi  and  *iS3  in  v.  1. 
So  the  gfca  dafiid  of  Rev.  5 :  5  and  22 :  16  is  explained  by  Stuart  as  mean- 
ing "  not  root  of  David,  but  a  root-shoot  from  the  trunk  or  stem  of 
David."  But  Vitringa  supposes  the  Messiah  -to  be  called  the  root  of  Jesse, 
because  by  him  the  family  of  Jesse  is  sustained  and  perpetuated  ;  Cocceius, 
because  he  was  not  only  his  descendant  but  his  Maker  and  his  Saviour. 
Hitzig  understands  by  the  root  that  in  which  the  root  is  reproduced  and 
reappears.  But  Umbreit  takes  the  word  in  its  proper  sense,  and  understands 
the  prophecy  to  mean  that  the  family  of  Jesse  now  under  ground  should 
reappear  and  rise  to  the  height  of  a  03,  not  a  military  standard,  but  a  sig- 
nal, especially  one  raised  to  mark  a  place  of  rendezvous,  for  which  purpose 
lofty  trees  are  said  to  have  been  sometimes  used.  A  signal  of  the  nations 
then  is  one  displayed  to  gather  them.  ^£3  describes  it  as  continuing  or 
permanently  fixed.  The  reference  is  not  to  Christ's  crucifixion,  but  to  his 
manifestation  to  the  gentiles  through  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  dibs  is 
here  used  as  a  synonyme  of  b^ti,  meaning  not  the  tribes  of  Israel  but 
other  nations.  To  seek  to  is  not  merely  to  inquire  about,  through  curiosity — 
or  to  seek  one's  favour  in  the  general — or  to  pay  religious  honours — but 
more  specifically  to  consult  as  an  oracle  or  depository  of  religious  truth. 
By  his  rest  we  are  not  to  understand  his  grave — or  his  death — or  his  sab- 
bath— or  the  rest  he  gives  his  people — but  his  place  of  rest,  his  residence. 
There  is  no  need  of  supplying  a  preposition  before  glory,  which  is  an  abstract 
used  for  a  concrete — glory  for  glorious.  The  church,  Christ's  home,  shall 
be  glorious  from  his  presence  and  the  accession  of  the  gentiles.  Forerius  and 
J.  D.  Michaelis  needlessly  read  i^na^  his  offering. 

V.  1 1 .  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day — not  the  days  of 
Hezekiah  (Grotius),  nor  the  days  of  Cyrus  and  Darius  (Sanctius),  nor  the 
days  of  the  Maccabees  (Jahn),  but  the  days  of  the  Messiah — the  Lord  shall 
add  his  hand  (or  add  to  apply  his  hand)  a  second  time — not  second  in  reference 
to  the  overthrow  of  Pekah  and  Rezin  (Sanctius),  or  the  return  from  Baby- 
lon (Forerius),  or  the  first  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Jews  (Cocceius), 
but  to  the  deliverance  from  Egypt.     rn$«{  is  not  pleonastic  (Gesenius)  but 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  X  !.  229 

emphatic.  His  hand — not  his  arm  (Hitzig) — as  a  symbol  of  Strength 
(Targum) — not  in  apposition  with  the  Lord,  the  Lord  even  his  hand 
(Hitzig,  Hendewerk),  nor  governed  by  show  understood  (701;  dtifeut),  nor 
qualifying  rvupb  (Grotius),  but  either  governed  by  rfy^s  understood  (Luther, 
ausstrecken),  or  directly  by  cpov<  (Vulg.  adjiciet  manum).  rrtSp  is  not  the 
infinitive  of  wj?  (LXX.  fyXaoai,  Clericus),  but  of  K5£,  It  does  not  mean 
merely  to  possess  (Vulgate)  but  to  acquire  (Luther),  especially  by  pur- 
chase, and  so  to  redeem  from  bondage  and  oppression  (Vitringa),  as  "ob  is 
to  subject  them  to  it  (Gesenius),  although  the  true  opposite  of  the  latter 
verb  seems  to  be  rris  (Hendewerk).  The  remnant  of  his  people — not  the 
survivors  of  the  original  captives  (Aben  Ezra,  Hendewerk) — but  those  liv- 
ing at  the  time  of  the  deliverance,  or  still  more  restrictedly,  the  remnant 
according  to  the  election  of  grace  (Calvin). — From  Assyria  etc.  to  be 
construed  not  with  mjpb  (Abarbenel),  but  with  "ixirn,  as  appears  from 
v.  16.  The  countries  mentioned  are  put  for  all  in  which  the  Jews  should 
be  scattered. — There  is  no  importance  to  be  attached  to  the  order  in  which 
they  are  enumerated  (Cocceius),  nor  is  the  precise  extent  of  each  material. 
Assyria  and  Egypt  are  named  first  and  together,  as  the  two  great  foreign 
powers,  with  which  the  Jews  were  best  acquainted.  Pathros  is  not  Par- 
thia  (Calvin),  nor  Arabia  Petraea  (Forerius),  nor  Pharusis  in  Ethiopia 
(Grotius),  nor  Patures,  in  the  Delta  of  the  Nile  (Brocard,  Adrichomius). 
but  Thebais  or  Upper  Egypt,  as  appears  not  only  from  a  comparison  of 
Scriptures  (Bochart),  but  also  from  the  Egyptian  etymology  of  the  name 
(Jablonsky),  as  denoting  the  region  of  the  south  (Gesenius).  It  is  distin- 
guished from  Egypt  by  the  classical  writers  also. — B^Srt  is  a  dual  form, 
properly  denoting  either  upper  and  lower  or  middle  and  lower  Egypt. — 
Cush  is  not  merely  Ethiopia  proper  (Gesenius),  or  the  land  of  Midian 
(Bochart),  or  Babylonia  (Septuagint),  or  India  (Targum),  but  Ethiopia, 
perhaps  including  part  of  Arabia,  from  which  it  appears  to  have  been 
settled  (Calvin,  J.  D.  Michaelis). — Shinar  is  properly  the  plain  in  which 
Babylon  was  built,  thence  put  for  Babylonia.  Elam  is  not  the  rising 
of  the  sun  (Septuagint),  but  Elymais,  a  province  of  Persia,  contiguous 
to  Media,  sometimes  put  for  the  whole  country.  Hamath  is  not  Arabia 
(Septuagint),  but  a  city  of  Syria  on  the  Orontes.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  10:  9.) 
Islands  of  the  sea,  not  regions  (Henderson)  which  is  too  vague,  nor 
coasts  in  general  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  nor  islands  in  the  strict  sense  (Clericus). 
but  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  whether  insular  or  continental,  and 
substantially  equivalent  to  Europe  (Cocceius),  meaning  the  part  of  it 
then  known,  and  here  put  last,  according  to  Cocceius,  as  being  the  most 
important. — This  prophecy  does  not  relate  to  the  gentiles  or  the  Christian 
church  (Cocceius),  but  to  the  Jews  (Jerome).  The  dispersions  spoken  of 
are  not  merely  such  as  had  already  taken  place  at  the  date  of  the  prediction 


230  ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XI. 


(Gesenius),  but  others  then  still  future  (Hengstenberg),  including  not  only 
the  Babylonish  exile  but  the  present  dispersion.  The  prophecy  was  not 
fulfilled  in  the  return  of  the  refugees  after  Sennacherib's  discomfiture  (Gro- 
tius),  nor  in  the  return  from  Babylon  (Sanctius),  and  but  partially  in  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Jews.  The  complete  fulfilment  is  to  be 
expected  when  all  Israel  shall  be  saved.  The  prediction  must  be  figura- 
atively  understood,  because  the  nations  mentioned  in  this  verse  have  long 
ceased  to  exist.  The  event  prefigured  is,  according  to  Keith  and  others, 
the  return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine  ;  but  according  to  Calvin,  Vitringa,  and 
Hengstenberg,  their  admission  to  Christ's  kingdom  on  repentance  and  recep- 
tion of  the  Christian  faith. 

V.  12.  And  he  (Jehovah)  shall  set  up  a  signal  to  the  nations,  and 
shall  gather  the  outcasts  of  Israel,  and  the  dispersed  of  Judah  shall  he 
bring  together  from  the  four  wings  of  the  earth. — pg  is  not  necessarily  a 
banner  (Luther)  but  a  sign  or  signal  (LXX.  oijueiov,  Vulg.  signum)  dis- 
played for  the  purpose  of  assembling  troops  or  others  at  some  one  point. — 
To  the  nations,  not  among  them  (Luther),  nor  for  them  (English  Version), 
which  though  essentially  correct,  is  not  so  simple  and  exact  as  to  the  nations, 
i.  e.  in  their  sight.  The  nations  thus  addressed  are  not  the  Jews  but  the 
gentiles,  and,  as  most  interpreters  suppose,  those  gentiles  among  whom  the 
Jews  were  scattered,  and  who  are  summoned  by  the  signal  here  displayed 
to  set  the  captives  free,  or  to  assist  them  in  returning,  or,  according  to  the 
rabbins,  actually  to  bring  them  as  an  offering  to  Jehovah,  a  figure  elsewhere 
used  in  this  same  book  (ch.  66 :  19,20).  Hitzig  indeed  with  double 
assurance  pronounces  that  passage  to  be  not  only  written  by  another  hand 
but  founded  upon  a  misapprehension  of  the  one  before  us.  But  the  very 
same  idea  is  expressed  in  ch.  14  :  2.  49 :  22.  There  is,  however,  another 
view  of  the  passage,  which  supposes  the  nations  or  gentiles  to  be  here  men- 
tioned as  distinct  from  the  Jews,  and  unconnected  with  them.  The  verse 
then  contains  two  successive  predictions,  first,  that  the  gentiles  shall  be 
called,  and  then  that  the  Jews  shall  be  restored,  which  agrees  exactly  with 
Paul's  account  of  the  connexion  between  these  events.  Blindness  in  part 
is  happened  to  Israel  until  the  fulness  of  the  gentiles  be  come  in  (Rom.  11 : 
25,  26).  On  this  hypothesis,  the  signal  is  displayed  to  the  gentiles,  not 
that  they  may  send  or  bring  the  Jews  back,  but  that  they  may  come  them- 
selves, and  then  the  gathering  of  Israel  and  Judah  is  added,  as  a  distinct 
if  not  a  subsequent  event.  This  last  interpretation  is  favoured  by  the 
analogy  of  a  New  Testament  prophecy,  the  first  by  an  analogous  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  himself. — Israel  and  Judah  are  put  together  to  denote  the  race  in 
general.  Outcasts  and  dispersed  are  of  different  genders.  The  latter, 
which  is  feminine  in  form,  is  supposed  by  the  older  writers  to  agree  with 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   X  I.  231 

some  word  understood — such  as  souls  (Pagninus),  members  (Junius),  sheep 
(Piscator),  families  (Clericus),  women  (Gataker) — implying  that  no  sex  or 
rank  would  be  passed  by.  According  to  Gesenius,  the  construction  is  an 
idiomatic  one,  both  predicates  belonging  to  both  subjects,  the  exiled  men  of 
Israel  and  the  scattered  women  of  Judah,  meaning  the  exiled  men  and 
scattered  women  both  of  Israel  and  Judah.  (For  other  examples  of 
this  merismus  or  parallage  elliptica,  see  ch.  18:  6.  Zech.  9:  17.  Prov. 
10:  1.)  At  the  same  time  he  regards  it  as  an  example  of  another  idiom 
which  combines  the  genders  to  express  totality.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  3 :  1.) 
But  these  two  explanations  are  hardly  compatible,  and  Henderson,  with 
more  consistency,  alleges  that  there  is  no  distinct  allusion  to  the  sex  of  the 
wanderers,  and  that  the  feminine  form  is  added  simply  to  express  universa- 
lity. Ewald,  on  the  contrary,  makes  the  distinction  of  the  sexes  prominent 
by  adding  to  the  participles  man  and  wife.  ?$3  is  properly  the  wing  of  a 
bird,  then  the  skirt  or  edge  of  a  garment,  then  the  extremity  of  the  earth, 
in  which  sense  it  is  used  both  in  the  singular  and  plural.  The  same  idea 
is  expressed  by  the  four  winds,  with  which  in  the  New  Testament  are 
mentioned  the  four  corners,  and  this  last  expression  is  used  even  here  by 
Clericus  and  in  the  old  French  version.  The  reference  of  course  is  to  the 
cardinal  points  of  the  compass,  as  determined  by  the  rising  and  setting  of 
the  sun. — If  this  verse  be  understood  as  predicting  the  agency  of  the  gen- 
tiles in  restoring  the  Jews,  it  may  be  said  to  have  been  partially  fulfilled  in 
the  return  from  Babylon  under  the  auspices  of  Cyrus,  and  again  in  all 
efforts  made  by  gentile  Christians  to  convert  the  Jews  ;  but  its  full  accom- 
plishment is  still  prospective,  and  God  may  even  now  be  lifting  up  a  signal 
to  the  gentiles  for  this  very  purpose. — Hendewerk's  notion  that  this  pro- 
phecy was  fulfilled  when  many  brought  gifts  unto  the  Lord  to  Jerusalem, 
and  presents  to  Hezekiah  king  of  Judah,  so  that  he  was  lifted  up  (xr:*-) 
in  the  sight  of  all  nations  from  thenceforth  (2  Chron.  32:  23),  neither 
requires  nor  admits  of  refutation.  The  same  may  perhaps  be  said  of  Coc- 
ceius's  opinion,  that  this  verse  relates  wholly  or  chiefly  to  the  healing  of 
divisions  in  the  Christian  church. 

V.  13.  And  the  envy  of  Ephraim  shall  depart  (or  cease),  and  the 
enemies  of  Judah  shall  be  cut  off.  Ephraim  shall  not  envy  Judah,  and 
Judah  shall  not  vex  (oppress  or  harass)  Ephraim.  Jacob,  in  his  prophetic 
statement  of  the  fortunes  of  his  sons,  disregards  the  rights  of  primogeniture 
and  gives  the  pre-eminence  to  Judah  and  Joseph  (Gen.  49:  8-12.  22-26), 
and  in  the  family  of  the  latter  to  the  younger  son  Ephraim  (Gen.  48:  19). 
Hence  from  the  time  of  the  exodus,  these  two  were  regarded  as  the  leading 
tribes  of  Israel.  Judah  was  much  more  numerous  than  Ephraim  (Num.  1  : 
27,  33) — took   precedence  during  the  journey  in   the  wilderness   (Num. 


232  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XL 

2:3.  10  :  14) — and  received  the  largest  portion  in  the  promised  land.    But 
Joshua  was  an  Ephraimite  (Num.  13  :  8),  and  Shiloh,  where  the  tahernacle 
long  stood   (Jos.  18  :  1.  1  Sam.  4  :  3),  was   probably  within  the  limits  of 
the  same  tribe.     The  ambitious  jealousy  of  the  Ephraimites  towards  other 
tribes  appears  in  their  conduct  to   Gideon   and  Jephtha  (Judges  8  :  1.  12: 
1).     Their    special    jealousy   of  Judah   showed  itself  in   their  temporary 
refusal  to  submit  to  David  after  the  death  of  Saul — in  their  adherence  to 
Absalom  against  his  father — and  in  the  readiness  with  which  they  joined  in 
the  revolt  of  Jeroboam,  who  was  himself  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (1  Kings 
11  :  26).     This  schism   was,  therefore,  not   a  sudden   or  fortuitous  occur- 
rence, but  the  natural  result  of  causes  which  had  long  been  working.     The 
mutual  relation  of  the  two  kingdoms  is  expressed  in  the  recorded  fact,  that 
there  ivas  war  between  Rehoboam  and  Jeroboam,  and  between  Asa  and 
Baasha,  all  their  days  (1   Kings   14  :  30.   15  :   16).     Exceptions  to  the 
general  rule,  as  in  the  case  of  Ahab  and  Jehoshaphat,  were  rare,  and  a 
departure  from  the  principles  and  ordinary  feelings  of  the  parties.     The 
ten  tribes,  which  assumed  the  name  of  Israel  after  the  division,  and  per- 
haps before  it,  regarded    the    smaller  and  less  warlike  state  with  a  con- 
tempt which    is  well    expressed    by  Jehoash  in  his  parable  of  the  cedar 
and  the  thistle  (2  Kings  14  :  9),  unless  the  feeling  there  displayed  be  rather 
personal  than  national.     On  the  other  hand,  Judah  justly  regarded  Israel 
as  guilty,  not  only  of  political  revolt,  but  of  religious  apostasy  (Ps*  78 : 
9—11),  and  the  jealousy  of  Ephraim  towards  Judah  would  of  course  be 
increased  by  the  fact  that  Jehovah  had  forsaken  the   tabernacle  of  Shiloh 
(Ps.  78:  60),  that  he  refused  the   tabernacle  of  Joseph,  and  chose  not  the 
tribe  of  Ephraim,  but  chose  the  tribe  of  Judah,  the  Mount  Zion  which  he 
loved  (ib.  vs.  67,  68).     To  these  historical  facts  Gesenius  refers,  as  showing 
the   incorrectness  of  DeWette's  assertion,  that   the    hatred  and  jealousy 
existed  only  on  the  part  of  Judah — a  paradox  which  may  indeed  be  looked 
upon  as  neutralized  by  the  counter-paradox  of  Hitzig,  that  they  existed  only 
on  the  part  of  Ephraim !     They  were  no  doubt  indulged  on  both  sides,  but 
with  this  difference,  that  Ephraim  or  Israel  was  in  the  wrong  from  the 
beginning,  and  as  might  have  been  expected,  more  malignant  in  its  en- 
mity.    This  view  of  the  matter  will  serve  to  explain  why  it  is  that  when  the 
Prophet  would  foretell  a  state  of  harmony  and  peace,  he  does  so  by  declaring 
that  the  hereditary  and  proverbial  enmity  of  Judah  and  Israel  should  cease.  It 
also  explains  why  he  lays  so  much  more  stress  upon  the  envy  of  Ephraim 
than  upon  the  enmity  of  Judah,  viz.  because  the  latter  was  only  an  indul- 
gence of  unhallowed  feeling,  to  which,  in  the  other  case,  were  superadded 
open  rebellion  and  apostasy  from  God.     Hence  the  first  three  members  of 
the  verse  before  us  speak  of  Ephraim's  enmity  to  Judah,  and  only  the  fourth 
of  Judah's  enmity  to  Ephraim ;  as  if  it  had  occurred  to  the  Prophet,  that 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XI.  233 


although  it  was  Ephraim  whose  disposition  needed  chiefly  to  be  changed, 
yet  Judah  also  had  a  change  to  undergo,  which  is  therefore  intimated  in  the 
last  clause,  as  a  kind  of  afterthought.  The  envy  of  Ephraim  against  Judah 
shall  depart — the  enemies  of  Judah  (in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes)  shall 
be  cut  off — Ephraim  shall  no  more  envy  Judah — yes,  and  Judah  in  its  turn 
shall  cease  to  vex  Ephraim.  There  is  indeed  another  construction  of  the 
verse,  ancient* and  sanctioned  by  very  high  authority,  which  makes  the 
Prophet  represent  the  parties  as  precisely  alike,  and  predict  exactly  the 
same  change  in  both.  This  construction  supposes  rnirn  ^Tnil  to  mean,  not 
the  enemies  of  Judah  (whether  foreign,  as  Cocceius  thinks,  or  in  the  sister 
kingdom),  but  the  enemies  (of  Ephraim)  in  Judah,  or  those  of  Judah  who  are 
enemies  to  Ephraim.  This  construction,  which  is  copied  by  Rosenmiiller  and 
Gesenius  from  Albert  Schultens,  is  really  as  old  as  Kimchi,  who  remarks  upon 
the  clause,  for  of  old  there  were  in  Judah  enemies  to  Ephraim.  Against  it 
may  be  urged,  not  only  the  general  principle  of  Hebrew  syntax,  that  a  noun  in 
regimen  with  an  active  participle  denotes  the  object  of  the  action,  but  the 
specific  usage  of  this  very  word.  Haman  is  called  di*Wj*tj  Tji,  the  enemy 
(or  oppressor)  of  the  Jeivs  (Esther  3:  10),  and  Amos  (5  :  12)  speaks  of 
those  who  treat  the  righteous  as  an  enemy  (P^s  *yf£)*  In  all  the  cases 
where  a  different  construction  of  the  participle  with  a  noun  has  been  alleged, 
either  the  usual  one  is  precluded  by  the  connexion  or  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  or  the  syntax  is  more  doubtful  than  in  the  case  before  us  (e.  g.  Ex. 
5:  14.  1  Sam.  19:  29.  1  Kings  2:  7.  5  :  32).  Knobel's  assertion  that  the 
participle  is  used  as  a  noun,  and  does  therefore  signify  the  object  of  the 
action,  is  contradicted  by  the  usage  of  ■Vjfc,  already  stated.  A  still  more 
arbitrary  method  of  attaining  the  same  end  is  that  proposed  by  Seeker  and 
approved  by  Lowth,  who  read  *y\l  as  an  abstract  meaning  enmity,  or  the 
modification  suggested  by  Gesenius,  of  taking  the  active  participle  itself  as 
an  abstract  noun.  These  constructions  are  so  violent,  and  the  contrary  usage 
so  plain,  that  the  question  naturally  arises,  why  should  the  latter  be  departed 
from  at  all  ?  The  answer  is,  because  the  favourite  notion  of  exact  paral- 
lelism requires  it.  All  the  writers  who  maintain  this  opinion  assume  that  the 
second  clause  must  express  the  same  idea  with  the  first,  and  in  the  same 
order.  Luther  indeed  was  satisfied  with  an  inverted  order,  and  by  giving  to 
the  first  phrase  the  sense  of  envy  against  Ephraim  (which  is  not  more  unau- 
thorized than  to  make  the  other  mean  enemies  in  Judah),  has  contrived  to 
make  the  first  clause  correspond  to  the  fourth,  and  the  second  to  the  third 
(und  der  Neid  wider  Ephraim  wird  aufhoren,  u.  s.  w.).  But  the  modern 
writers  must  have  a  parallelism  still  more  exact,  and  to  this  rhetorical 
chimera  both  the  syntax  and  the  true  sense  of  the  passage  must  be  sacrificed. 
In  this  case  we  are  able  to  produce  an  instance  from  another  prophet,  an 
older  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  in  which  the  structure  of  the  sentence  coincides 


234  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI. 

precisely  with  the  one  before  us,  that  is  to  say,  there  are  several  successive 
clauses  relating  to  one  of  the  parties  mentioned,  and  then  a  final  one  relating 
to  the  other.     This  example  is  found  in  Hos.  3  :  3,  And  I  said  to  her,  thou 
shalt  abide  for  me  many  days — thou  shalt  not  play  the  harlot — and  thou 
shall  not  be  another  maris — and  I  will  also  (act   thus)  to  thee.     So  here, 
the  jealousy  of  Ephraim  shall  cease — the  enemies   of  Judah  among   them 
shall  be  cut  off — Ephraim  shall  then  no  longer  envy  Judah-5— and  Judah  in 
return  shall  no  longer  be  the  enemy  of  Ephraim.     The  objection   that  the 
passage  in   Hosea  is  mere  prose,  is  not  only  gratuitous,  but  concedes  the 
liberty  of  assuming  the  same  thing  in  the  case  before  us.     The  influence 
exerted  on   interpretation  by  this  theory  of  perfect  parallels  is  clear  in  this 
case,  from  the  fact  that  Hengstenberg  follows  Gesenius  without  any  hesitation, 
and  that  Ewald   (though  he  modifies  the  meaning  of  tifc)  adopts  the  same 
construction,  in  direct  opposition  to  his  own  authority,  (Heb.  Gr.  §  208), 
which  Hitzig  had  cited  in  defence  of  the  true  interpretation.     The  tendency 
of  this   theory  is  moreover  apparent   from   the  conclusion  to  which  Hitzig 
himself  comes,  that   although  rrtWTJ  "n^'s   can  only  mean  the  enemies  of 
Judah,  the  second  clause  evidently  puts  the  other  sense  upon  it,  and  is  there- 
fore an  interpolation  !     Umbreit  alone  of  the  recent  German  writers  has  the 
good  sense  and  taste  to  reject  at  once  this  wanton  mutilation  of  the  text  and 
the  forced  construction  of  the  sentence,  and  to  understand  the  sentence  in 
the  simple  and  obvious  meaning  put  upon  it  by  the  ancient  versions  and  by 
the  older  writers  who  have  not  been  mentioned.  — The   fulfilment  of  this 
prophecy  is    found    by  Hendewerk  in   Hezekiah's  efforts   to   reclaim   the 
Israelites  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (2  Chron.  30).     That  it  was  not  ful- 
filled in   the  return  from   exile,  is  sufficiently  notorious.     That  it  had  not 
been  fulfilled  when  Christ  came,  is  plain  from  the  continued  enmity  between 
the  Jews,  Samaritans,  and  Galileans.     The  only  fulfilment  it  has  ever  had 
is  in  the  abolition  of  all  national  and  sectional  distinctions  in  the  Christian 
church  (Gal.  3 :  27,  29.  5 :  6),  to  which  converted  Jews  as  well  as  others 
must  submit.     Its  full  accomplishment  is  yet  to  come,  in  the  re-union  of  the 
tribes  of  Israel  under   Christ  their  common  head  (Hos.   1:   11). — Jarchi 
explains  the  verse  to  mean  that  Messiah  the  son  o  Joseph  and  Messiah  the 
son  of  Judah  shall  not  envy  one  another — Aben  Ezra,  that  Ephraim  shall 
not  be  jealous  because  the  Messiah  is  to  come  of  Judah.     Cocceius  applies 
the  prophecy  exclusively  to  future  reconciliations  in  the  Christian  church. — 
Tj*  is  not  to  envy,  as  Schultens  argues  from  the  Arabic  analogy,  nor  to  be 
turbulent,   as  Ewald  gives   it,  but  to  treat  in    a  hostile    manner.     rn&  is 
strictly  to  depart,  i.  e.  cease  or  be  removed,  as  in  ch.  10 :  27. 

V.  14.  Instead  of  assailing  or    annoying  one   another,  they  are  repre- 
sented as  making  common    cause  against  a  common  enemy.     And  they 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI.  235 

(Ephraim  and  Judah,  undivided  Israel)  shall  fly  (lik<  a  bin]  of  prey)  upon 
the  shoulder  of  the  I'hilistincs  towards  the  sea  (or  westwards) — together 
they  shall  spoil  the  sons  of  the  cast  (the  Arabians  and  perhaps  the  Syrians) 
— Edam  and  Moab  the  stretching  out  of  their  hand  (i.  e.  the  object  of  that 
action)  and  the  children  of  Amnion  their  obedience  (i.  e.  their  subjects). 
All  the  names  are  those  of  neighbouring  nations  with  whom  the  Hebrews 
were  accustomed  to  wage  war.  Edom,  Moab,  and  Ammon,  may  be 
specially  named  for  an  additional  reason,  viz.  that  they  were  nearly  related 
to  Israel,  and  yet  among  his  most  inveterate  enemies.  The  Jews 
explain  this  as  a  literal  prediction  having  respect  to  the  countries  formerly 
possessed  by  the  races  here  enumerated.  Most  Christian  writers  understand 
it  spiritually  of  the  conquests  to  be  achieved  by  the  true  religion,  and  sup- 
pose the  nations  here  named  to  be  simply  put  for  enemies  in  general,  or 
for  the  heathen  world  ;  this  method  of  description  being  rendered  more  em- 
phatic by  the  historical  associations  which  the  names  awaken. — To  fly  upon 
means  here  to  fly  at,  or,  as  Henderson  expresses  it,  to  pounce  upon,  the 
6gure  being  that  of  an  eagle  or  other  bird  of  prey.  The  almost  innumerable 
meanings  put  upon  this  verse  and  its  peculiar  expressions,  may  be  found  in 
Pool,  Rosenmuller,  and  Gesenius. 

V.  15.  To  the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  Israel  is  added  a  prediction 
that  all  obstacles,  even  the  most  formidable,  to  the  restoration  of  God's 
people,  shall  be  overcome  or  taken  away  by  his  almighty  power.  This 
idea  is  naturally  expressed  by  the  dividing  of  the  Red  Sea  and  Euphrates, 
because  Egypt  and  Assyria  are  the  two  great  powers  from  which  Israel  had 
suffered  and  was  yet  to  be  delivered.  And  Jehovah  will  destroy  (by 
drying  up)  the  tongue  (or  bay)  of  the  sea  of  Egypt  (i.  e.  the  Red  Sea), 
and  he  will  wave  his  hand  (as  a  gesture  of  menace  or  a  symbol  of  miracu- 
lous power)  over  the  river  (Euphrates),  in  the  violence  of  his  wind  (or 
breath),  and  smite  it  (the  Euphrates)  into  seven  streams,  and  make  (his 
people)  tread  (it)  in  shoes  (i.  e.  dry-shod).  The  meaning  of  ennn  is  not 
to  split,  divide  (Knobel),  for  which  there  is  nothing  but  an  Arabic  analogy 
and  a  doubtful  interpretation  of  onn  Lev.  21  :  18 — but  properly  to  consecrate 
by  an  irrevocable  vow,  and  then  by  implication  to  destroy,  which  in  this 
case  could  be  done  only  by  drying  up.  This  last  idea,  therefore,  is 
included,  but  there  is  no  need  of  reading  :mnn,  as  Houbigant,  Lowth, 
and  Rosenmuller  do,  on  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions. — Tongue, 
which  is  applied  in  other  languages  to  projecting  points  of  land,  is  here 
descriptive  of  a  bay  or  indentation  in  a  shore.  The  sea  of  Egypt  is  not 
the  Nile,  as  some  suppose,  although  the  name  sea  has  been  certainly  applied 
to  it  from  the  earliest  times — but  the  Red  Sea,  called  the  Sea  of  Egypt 
for  the  same  reason  that  it  is  called  the  Arabian  Gulf.     The  tongue  of  this  sea 


236  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XI. 

is  the  narrow  gulf  or  bay  in  which  it  terminates  to  the  north-west  near  Suez, 
called  by  the  old  writers  the  Sinus  Her oopolit anus,  to  distinguish  it  from  the 
Sinus  Elaniticus,  the  north-east  extremity.  Through  the  former  the 
Israelites  passed  when  they  left  Egypt,  and  it  is  now  predicted  that  it  shall 
be  utterly  destroyed,  i.  e.  dried  up.  At  the  same  time  the  Euphrates  is  to 
be  smitten  into  seven  streams,  and  so  made  fordable,  as  Cyrus  is  said  to 
have  reduced  the  Gyndes  by  diverting  its  water  into  360  artificial  channels. 
Vitringa  supposes  a  specific  overthrow  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  to  be  here 
predicted;  Grotius,  the  division  of  the  latter  into  several  kingdoms.  But 
the  terms  are  probably  strong  figures  drawn  from  the  early  history  and  expe- 
rience of  Israel.  Gesenius,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  lexicon,  appears  to 
favour  the  reading  of  ess  for  d^2?  (in  the  strength  of  his  wind),  suggested  by 
Luzzatto,  on  the  ground  of  the  resemblance  between  ■*  and  s  in  the  old  He- 
brew alphabet.  The  other  reading,  which  occurs  only  here,  is  commonly 
explained  to  mean  violent  heat,  and  then  secondarily  violence  in  general. 

V.  16.  And  there  shall  be  a  highway  for  the  remnant  of  my  people, 
which  shall  be  left,  from  Assyria,  as  there  was  for  Israel,  in  the  day  of  his 
coming  up  from  the  land  of  Egypt.     This  verse  admits  of  two  intepretations. 
According  to  one,  it  is  a  comparison  of  the  former  deliverance  from  Egypt 
with  the   future  one  from  Assyria  and  the   neighbouring  countries,  where 
most  Jewish  exiles  were  to  be  found.     According  to  the  other,  it  is  a  repe- 
tition of  the  preceding  promise,  that  previous  deliverances,  particularly  those 
from  Egypt  and  Assyria,  should  be  repeated  in   the  "future  history  of  the 
church.     The   fulfilment  has  been  sought  by  different  interpreters,  in  the 
return  from  Babylon,  in  the  general  progress  of  the  gospel,  and  in  the  future 
restoration  of  the  Jews.     The  first  of  these  can  at  most  be  regarded  only  as 
a  partial  or  inchoate  fulfilment,  and  against  the  last  lies  the  obvious  objec- 
tion, that  the  context  contains  promises  and  threatenings  which  are  obviously 
figurative,  although  so  expressed  as  to  contain  allusions  to  remarkable  events 
in  the  experience  of  Israel.     Such  is  the  dividing  or  drying  up  of  the  tongue 
of  the  Red  Sea,  which  must  either  be  figuratively  understood,  or  supposed 
to  refer  to  a  future  miracle,  which  last  hypothesis  is  certainly  not  necessary, 
and  therefore  can  be   fully  justified  by  nothing  but  the  actual  event. — «"^&^ 
is  not  simply  a  way,  as  the  ancient  versions  give  it,  nor  a  fortified  way  as 
Cocceius  explains  it  (via  munita),  but  a  highway  .as  explained  by  Junius 
(agger)  and  Henderson  (causey),  an  artificial  road  formed  by  casting  up  the 
earth  (from  bbo  to  raise),  and  thus  distinguished  from  a  path  worn  by  the  feet 
($&%  or  ^^P?)*     Knobel  and  some  other  of  the  later  writers  suppose  an  allu- 
sion to  the  desert  after  the  crossing  of  the  water,  whereas  all  the  older  writers 
understand  a  way  through  the  water  itself.     Grotius  and  Knobel  connect 
"WB813  with   sn|p»,  others  with  ^«T»ft,  as  in  v.   11.     The  ambiguity  of  the 
Hebrew  construction  is  skilfully  retained  in  the  English  Version. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XII. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Taking  occasion  from  the  reference  to  Egypt  and  the  exodus  in  the 
close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  the  Prophet  now  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
Israel  a  song  analogous  to  that  of  Moses,  from  which  some  of  the  expressions 
are  directly  borrowed.  The  structure  of  this  Psalm  is  very  regular,  con- 
sisting of  two  parts,  in  each  of  which  the  Prophet  first  tells  the  people  what 
they  will  say,  or  have  a  right  to  say,  when  the  foregoing  promises  are 
verified,  and  then  addresses  them  again  in  his  own  person  and  in  the  usual 
language  of  prediction.  In  the  first  stanza,  they  are  made  to  acknowledge 
the  divine  compassion  and  to  express  their  confidence  in  God  as  the  source 
of  all  their  strength,  and  therefore  the  rightful  object  of  their  praise,  vs.  1—3. 
In  the  second  stanza,  they  exhort  one  another  to  make  known  what  God  has 
done  for  them,  not  only  at  home  but  among  all  nations,  and  are  exhorted  by 
the  Prophet  to  rejoice  in  the  manifested  presence  of  Jehovah,  vs.  4-6. 

Ewald  rejects  this  chapter,  as  an  addition  made  by  some  reader  or 
transcriber  of  Isaiah  later  than  the  exile.  His  reasons  are,  that  the  prophecy 
is  wound  up  and  complete  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  chapter,  and  that  the 
style,  phraseology,  and  tone,  are  not  those  of  Isaiah.  The  first  of  these 
reasons  he  refutes  himself  by  saying  that  the  reference  to  Egypt  in  ch.  1 1 : 
16,  probably  suggested  this  addition  to  the  later  writer ;  a  hypothesis 
which  we  are  equally  at  liberty  to  apply  to  Isaiah  himself,  unless  the 
passage  is  manifestly  from  another  hand.  This  reduces  Ewald's  arguments 
to  one,  and  to  that  one  Umbreit  gives  a  sufficient  answer  when  he  says  that 
the  Prophet,  intending  to  wind  up  his  prophecy  with  a  composition  in  the 
nature  of  a  psalm,  adopts  of  course  the  general  style,  which  from  the  time 
of  David  had  been  used  for  that  purpose.  That  he  did  not  rather  copy  the 
manner  of  Moses,  may  be  explained,  not  only  on  the  ground  that  the  other 
style  had  now  become  familiar  to  the  people,  but  also  on  the  ground  that 
such  an  imitation  might  have  made  the  comparison  with  Egypt  and  the 
exodus  too  prominent  for  the  Prophet's  purpose,  which  was  to  express 
thanksgiving  in  a  manner  appropriate  to  all  the  deliverances  of  the  church 
from  evil,  whether  natural  or  spiritual.  Hence  too  the  indefiniteness  of  the 
language,  and  a  seeming  want  of  intimate  connexion  with  the  foregoing 
prophecy. 

V.  1.  And  thou — Israel,  the  people  of  God — shalt  say  in  that  day — 
when  the  foregoing  promise  is  accomplished — J  ivill  praise  thee — strictly, 
acknowledge  thee  as  worthy,  and  as  a  benefactor — for  thou  wast  angry  with 


238  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XII. 


me,  but  thine  anger  is  turned  away  and  thou  comfortest  me. — The  English 
version  renders  ^3  though,  but  according  to  the  masoretic  interpunction,  it 
must  be  read  with  the  preceding  words.  The  apparent  incongruity  of 
thanking  God  because  he  was  angry,  is  removed  by  considering  that  the 
subject  of  the  thanksgiving  is  the  whole  complex  idea  expressed  in  the 
remainder  of  the  verse,  of  which  God's  being  angry  is  only  one  element. 
It  was  not  simply  because  God  was  angry  that  the  people  praise  him,  but 
because  he  was  angry  and  his  anger  ceased.  The  same  idea  is  expressed 
by  the  English  Version  in  another  form,  by  intimating  early  in  the  sentence 
the  relation  of  its  parts,  whereas  it  is  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  style  to 
state  things  absolutely  first,  and  qualify  them  afterwards.  The  same  mode  of 
expression  is  used  by  Paul  in  Greek,  when  he  says  (Romans  6  :  17),  God  be 
thanked  that  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  but  ye  have  from  the  heart  obeyed 
etc.  This  view  of  the  matter  precludes  the  necessity  of  taking  tfli»  in  the 
sense  of  I  acknowledge  thee  to  have  been  just  in  being  angry  at  me.  The 
force  of  the  particle  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  can  be  fully 
represented  only  by  the  English  but. — s&5;  is  the  abbreviated  form  of  the 
future,  commonly  used  to  express  a  wish  or  a  command,  in  which  sense 
some  explain  it  here,  taking  this  clause  as  a  prayer  for  deliverance.  But 
this  would  confine  the  expression  of  thanksgiving  to  God's  being  angry,  the 
very  incongruity  which  has  just  been  shown  not  to  exist.  It  must  be  taken 
either  as  a  poetical  substitute  for  awJj  with  a  present  meaning,  or  as  con- 
tracted for  s^3*i  in  a  past  sense,  which  is  given  in  most  versions.  The 
force  of  the  verb  in  this  connexion  is  enhanced  by  a  comparison  with  chap. 
10 :  4,  and  the  parallel  verses  of  the  foregoing  context,  where  it  is  said 
repeatedly  that  God's  wrath  had  not  turned  back  or  away  (pv  &6).  Thou 
comfortest  me,  not  by  words  only  but  by  deeds,  which  may  seem  to  justify 
the  version  thou  hast  mercy  on  me,  given  by  some  writers. 

V.  2.  Behold,  God  is  my  salvation.  I  will  trust,  and  not  be  afraid ; 
for  my  strength  and  song  is  Jah  Jehovah,  and  he  is  become  my  salvation. 
Some  exchange  the  abstract  for  the  concrete,  my  Saviour,  but  with  a  great 
loss  of  strength  in  the  expression.  The  first  verb  may  be  rendered  in  the 
present  (1  trust),  as  describing  an  actual  state  of  mind  ;  but  the  future  form, 
while  it  sufficiently  implies  this,  at  the  same  time  expresses  a  fixed  deter- 
mination, I  will  trust,  be  confident,  secure.  The  next  words  contain  a 
negative  expression  of  the  same  idea.  In  certain  connexions,  ts>  seems  to 
denote  power  as  an  element  of  glory,  an  object  of  admiration,  and  a  subject 
of  praise.  Hence  Gesenius  and  others  assign  praise  as  a  secondary  mean- 
ing of  the  word  itself,  which  is  pushing  the  deduction  and  distinction  of 
senses  to  extremes.  Jarchi  observes  that  *vrs,  with  6  in  the  first  syllable,  is 
never  used  except  in  combination  with  1^3%  the  orthography  elsewhere 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XII.  239 

being  always  m:?.  Thi>  variation  may,  however,  be  euphonic,  and  ha 
no  connexion  with  a  difference  of  meaning.  My  praise  and  my  song  gives 
a  good  sense,  but  no  hitter,  and  assuredly  no  stronger,  than  my  strength 
and  my  sojig,  i.  e.  the  source  of  my  protection  and  the  subject  of  my  praise. 
Kimrhi  and  others  regard  r~V.,  here  and  in  the  parallel  passages,  as  an 
abbreviation  of  T^T;  but  the  modern  writers  make  it  a  collateral  or  cog- 
nate form  of  fvyp,  and  supply  the  suffix  from  the  preceding  word. — Coc- 
ceius  derives  WJ  from  nsp  to  be  suitable,  becoming,  and  considers  it  an 
abstract  denoting  the  divine  perfection.  It  is  much  more  probably  an  ab- 
breviation of  njn^,  and  as  such  occurs  at  the  end  of  many  compound 
proper  names.  In  the  song  of  Moses,  from  which  this  expression  is  bor- 
rowed, hjrrj  is  omitted  (Ex.  15:  2),  as  also  in  Ps.  118:  14,  which  is 
copied  from  the  same.  Nor  does  the  combination  IrtltJ  fp  occur  elsewhere, 
except  in  Isai.  26 :  4.  Some  of  the  modern  writers,  therefore,  have  con- 
tended that  rn'rn  is  superfluous.  But  the  fact  of  its  occurrence  in  another 
passage  of  this  very  book  precludes  this  emendation  in  the  absence  of  ex- 
ternal evidence.  There  is  really  nothing  more  surprising  in  the  combination 
than  in  the  frequent  accumulation  of  the  other  divine  names. 

V.  3.  And  ye  shall  draw  water  with  joy  from  the  springs  of  salvation. 
— This  is  a  natural  and  common  figure  for  obtaining  and  enjoying  divine 
favour.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  a  particular  allusion  to  the  doctrines 
of  religion.  By  this  verse  the  Talmudists  explain  and  justify  the  custom 
of  pouring  out  water  from  the  fountain  of  Siloam  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 
a  ceremony  no  doubt  long  posterior  to  the  time  of  Isaiah. 

V.  4.  And  ye  shall  say  (to  one  another)  in  that  day,  praise  (or  give 
thanks  to)  Jehovah,  call  upon  his  name  (proclaim  it),  make  known  among 
the  nations  his  exploits  (or  achievements),  remind  (them)  that  his  name  is 
exalted.  Some  take  nwwri  in  the  sense  of  praising,  celebrating,  and  trans- 
late "'s  for,  because,  in  which  case  what  follows  is  not  the  subject  but  the 
reason  of  the  praise.  The  English  Bible  has  make  mention  ;  but  the  strict 
sense  of  the  Hiphil  as  a  causative  is  perfectly  appropriate  and  suits  the  context. 
Name  is  here  used  in  the  pregnant  sense  of  that  whereby  God  makes  him- 
self known,  including  explicit  revelation  and  the  exhibition  of  his  attributes 
in  all.  On  the  usage  of  this  word  in  the  Psalms,  see  Hengstenberg  on 
Ps.  8:  1. 

V.  5.  Praise  Jehovah  (by  singing,  and  perhaps  with  instruments)  be- 
cause he  has  done  elevation  (or  sublimity,  i.  e.  a  sublime  deed).  Known  is 
this  (or  be  this)  in  all  the  earth. — *iet  means  properly  to  play  upon  stringed 
instruments,  then  to  sing  with  an  accompaniment,  then  to  sing  in  general, 


240  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII,  XIV. 

then  to  praise  by  singing  or  by  music  generally.  In  this  last  sense  it  may 
govern  the  noun  directly. — The  English  Version,  excellent  things,  is  too  inde- 
finite for  the  singular  form  WW». — The  Kethib  W»a  is  the  Pual,  -the  Keri 
nywa  the  Hophal  participle,  of  2>n">  to  Jcnoiv.  Both  forms  are  causative  and 
passive,  made  known,  caused  to  be  known.  Knobel  conjectures  that  Wgjin 
may  have  been  a  noun,  synonymous  with  n??ta,  and  analogous  in  form  to 
r^sia  from  SS*. — The  English  Version  supplies  it,  and  makes  the  last 
clause  an  appeal  to  the  whole  world  for  the  truth  of  the  thing  celebrated. 
Most  of  the  recent  versions  make  it  an  imperative  expression,  exhorting  to 
a  general  diffusion  of  the  truth. 

V.  6.  Cry  out  and  shout  (or  sing),  oh  inhabitant  of  Zion  (the  people 
or  the  church  personified  as  a  woman),  for  great  in  the  midst  of  thee 
(residing  in  thee  by  a  special  manifestation  of  his  presence)  is  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel  (that  Holy  Being  who  has  bound  himself  to  Israel,  in  a  pecu- 
liar and  extraordinary  manner,  as  their  covenant  God). 


CHAPTERS  XIII,  XIV. 

Here  begins  a  series  of  prophecies  (chap.  XIII — XXIII)  against  certain 
foreign  powers,  from  the  enmity  of  which  Israel  had  been  more  or  less  a 
sufferer.  The  first  in  the  series  is  a  memorable  prophecy  of  the  fall  of  the 
Babylonian  empire  and  the  destruction  of  Babylon  itself  (chap.  XIII,  XIV) 
The  Medes  are  expressly  named  as  the  instruments  of  its  subjection,  and 
the  prophecy  contains  several  other  remarkable  coincidences  with  history 
both  sacred  and  profane.  Hence  it  was  justly  regarded  by  the  older  writers, 
both  Jews  and  Christians,  as  an  extraordinary  instance  of  prophetic  fore- 
sight. As  such,  even  J.  D.  Michaelis  defends  it  against  the  hypothesis 
(then  a  novel  one)  of  an  ex  post  facto  prophecy  invented  for  the  purpose  of 
inducing  Cyrus  to  befriend  the  Jews.  He  argues  conclusively  against  this 
supposition,  on  the  ground  that  the  literary  merit  of  the  passage  is  too  exqui- 
site for  such  an  origin,  and  that  the  writer,  in  the  case  supposed,  could  not 
have  represented  the  destruction  of  Babylon  as  total  without  defeating  his 
own  purpose.  The  last  objection  also  lies  against  Eichhorn's  supposition 
of  a  prophecy  written  after  the  event  but  without  any  fraudulent  design, 
the  form  of  prediction  being  merely  a  poetical  costume.  Rosenmuller  holds 
that  it  was  written  towards  the  close  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  while  the 
events  which  it  describes  were  in   progress,  or  so  near  at  hand  as  to  be 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.    XIII,  XIV.  241 

readily  foreseen.  This  view  of  the  matter  is  also  taken  by  Gesenius  and 
the  later  German  writers  on  Isaiah.  The  arguments  in  favour  of  it,  as 
recently  stated  by  Knobel,  may  be  reduced  to  three — (1)  a  spirit  unworthy 
of  Isaiah,  i.  e.  one  of  bitter  hatred  and  desire  of  revenge — (2)  a  want  of 
resemblance  in  the  style  and  diction  to  the  genuine  writings  of  Isaiah,  and 
a  strong  resemblance  to  some  later  compositions — (3)  a  constant  allusion 
to  historical  events  and  a  state  of  things  which  did  not  exist  for  ages  after 
Isaiah.  The  answer  to  the  first  reason  is  that  it  is  false.  Such  is  not  the 
natural  impression  which  the  prophecy  would  make  on  an  unbiassed  reader. 
This  perversion  has  been  unintentionally  aided  by  a  rhetorical  mistake  of 
Calvin  and  other  Christian  interpreters  in  representing  the  fourteenth  chap- 
ter as  taunting  and  sarcastic  in  its  tone,  which  on  the  contrary  is  character- 
ized by  pathos.  But  even  on  this  erroneous  supposition,  there  is  nothing 
to  justify  the  charge  of  bitter  vengefulness,  brought  for  the  first  time  by  the 
latest  German  writers,  with  an  obvious  design  to  strengthen  their  weak 
arguments  derived  from  other  sources.  The  second  argument  is  unsound  in 
principle  and  precarious  in  application.  On  the  ground  that  every  writer 
always  writes  alike,  only  one  composition  of  any  author  can  be  certainly 
proved  genuine.  The  Satires  of  Horace  must  be  spurious  because  he  was 
a  lyric  poet — the  Georgics  of  Virgil  because  he  was  an  epic  poet — 
the  Plaideurs  of  Racine  because  he  was  a  tragic  poet.  One  half  of  Aris- 
tophanes and  Shakspeare  might  be  thus  made  to  prove  the  other  half  a  for- 
gery. This  mode  of  criticism  is  peculiarly  German  and  will  never  com- 
mend itself  to  the  general  taste  and  judgment  of  the  learned  world.  The 
same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  attempt  to  ascertain  the  age  of  ancient 
writings  by  a  comparison  of  words  and  phrases.  One  critic  singles  out 
whatever,  taken  by  itself,  appears  to  favour  his  own  foregone  conclusion,  and 
leaves  the  rest  unnoticed.  Another,  with  another  end  in  view,  might  prove 
the  contrary  by  the  self-same  process.  This  is  not  only  possible  but  actu- 
ally done.  Thus  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  prove  that  Isaiah  could  not  have 
written  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  chapters,  by  an  enumeration  of 
diversities  in  diction,  phraseology,  grammatical  construction,  style  etc. 
Hendewerk  just  as  clearly  proves,  by  a  specification  of  minute  but  remark- 
able coincidences,  that  Isaiah  must  have  been  the  author.  Admitting  that 
the  second  demonstration  is  worth  no  more  than  the  first,  they  may  at  least 
serve  to  cancel  one  another,  and  to  show  the  fallacy  of  all  such  reasoning. 
This  argument  proves  nothing  by  itself  because  it  proves,  or  may  be  made 
to  prove,  too  much.  The  true  strength  of  the  doctrine  now  in  question 
lies  not  in  the  moral  or  philological  arguments  which  have  been  no- 
ticed, but  in  the  historical  one,  that  these  chapters  contain  statements  and 
allusions  which  imply  a  knowledge  of  what  happened  long  after  Isaiah's 

16 


242  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII,    XIV. 

death.  Hitzig  says  expressly  that  a  prophecy  against  Babylon  before  the 
time  of  Jeremiah  is  impossible.  This  of  course  is  tantamount  to  saying  that 
prophetic  inspiration  is  impossible.  And  this  is  after  all  the  only  question 
of  importance.  If  there  cannot  be  prophetic  foresight,  then  of  course  a 
reference  to  subsequent  events  fixes  the  date  of  the  writing  which  contains 
it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  inspiration  and  prophetic 
foresight,  there  is  nothing  to  weaken  the  presumption  created  by  a  uniform 
tradition,  the  immemorial  position  of  this  prophecy,  and  the  express  terms 
of  a  title  not  less  ancient  than  the  text,  of  which,  according  to  oriental 
usage,  it  is  really  a  part.  The  point  at  issue  therefore  between  Christian  and 
infidel  interpreters  has  reference  not  to  words  and  phrases  merely  but  to  the 
possibility  and  reality  of  inspiration.  Assuming  this,  we  can  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  regarding  the  prophecy  before  us  as  a  genuine  production  of  Isaiah. — 
Of  those  who  take  this  ground,  Cocceius  seems  to  stand  alone  in  questioning 
the  literal  application  of  the  prophecy  to  Babylon  in  the  proper  sense. 
He  refers  it  partly  to  ancient  Israel,  partly  to  Antichrist,  a  theory  which 
condemns  itself  as  equally  arbitrary  and  inconsistent.  Grotius  as  usual  goes 
to  the  opposite  extreme  of  supposing  that  this  is  a  hyperbolical  description 
of  evils  which  were  to  be  experienced  by  Babylon  before  it  reached  the 
zenith  of  its  greatness  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  a  hypothesis  as  arbi- 
trary as  the  other,  and  moreover  chargeable  with  contradicting  history. 
Some  particular  absurdities  of  both  these  schemes  will  be  brought  to  view 
in  the  exposition.  The  great  majority  of  Christian  writers  understand  these 
chapters  as  a  specific  prophecy  of  the  downfall  of  the  Babylonian  empire 
occasioned  by  the  conquests  of  the  Medes  and  Persians.  To  this  event 
there  are  repeated  unequivocal  allusions.  There  are  some  points,  however, 
in  which  the  coincidence  of  prophecy  and  history,  on  this  hypothesis,  is  not 
so  clear.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  respect  to  the  total  destruction 
and  annihilation  of  the  city  itself,  which  was  brought  about  by  a  gradual 
process  through  a  course  of  ages.  The  true  solution  of  this  difficulty  is  that 
that  the  prediction  is  generic,  not  specific  ;  that  it  is  not  a  detailed  account 
of  one  event  exclusively,  but  a  prophetic  picture  of  the  fall  of  Babylon  con- 
sidered as  a  whole,  some  of  the  traits  being  taken  from  the  first  and  some 
from  the  last  stage  of  the  fatal  process,  while  others  are  indefinite  or  com- 
mon to  all.  The  same  idea  may  be  otherwise  expressed  by  saying, 
that  the  king  of  Babylon,  whose  fall  is  here  predicted,  is  neither  Nebuchad- 
nezzar nor  Belshazzar,  but  the  kings  of  Babylon  collectively,  or  rather  an 
ideal  king  of  Babylon,  in  whom  the  character  and  fate  of  the  whole  empire 
are  concentrated.  Some  of  the  terms  applied  to  him  may  therefore  be  liter- 
ally true  of  one  king,  some  of  another,  some  individually  of  none,  although 
descriptive  of  the  whole.     This  hypothesis,  while  it  removes  all  discrepan- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII,  XIV.  243 

cies,  still  retains  the  wonderful  coincidences  of  the  prophecy  with  history, 
and  makes  them  more  remarkable  by  scattering  them  through  so  vast  a  field. 
Even  if  the  allusions  to  the  conquest  of  Cyrus  could  be  resolved  into  con- 
jecture or  contemporary  knowledge,  how  shall  we  account  for  a  description 
of  the  fate  of  the  great  city,  not  once  for  all,  but  down  to  the  present  mo- 
ment ?  Even  supposing  that  the  writer  of  this  prophecy  lived  at  the  time 
of  Cyrus,  how  will  the  infidel  interpreter  account  for  his  prediction  of  that 
total  desolation,  which  was  not  consummated  for  ages  afterwards,  but  which 
now  exists  to  the  full  extent  of  the  prophetic  description  in  its  strongest  sense. 
On  the  one  hand,  we  have  only  to  believe  that  Isaiah  was  inspired  of  God. 
On  the  other,  we  must  hold  that  a  writer  of  the  very  highest  genius  either 
personated  the  Prophet  or  was  confounded  with  him  by  the  ancient  Jews, 
and  that  this  anonymous  writer,  whose  very  name  is  lost,  without  any 
inspiration,  uttered  a  prediction  which  then  seemed  falsified  by  the  event, 
but  which  has  since  been  accidentally  fulfilled  ! — It  is  universally  admitted 
that  the  thirteenth  chapter,  and  the  greater  part  if  not  the  whole  of  the 
fourteenth,  constitute  a  single  prophecy.  The  division  of  the  chapters  is, 
however,  not  a  wrong  one.  Both  parts  relate  to  the  destruction  of  Babylon, 
setting  out  from  God's  decree  and  winding  up  with  the  threatening  of  total 
desolation.  Ch.  XIV  is  therefore  not  a  mere  continuation  of  ch.  XIII,  but 
a  repetition  of  the  same  matter  in  another  form.  The  difference  of  form  is 
chiefly  this,  that  while  ch.  XIII  is  more  historical  in  its  arrangement,  ch.  XIV 
is  dramatic  or  at  least  poetical.  Another  point  of  difference  is  that  in  ch. 
XIII  the  downfall  of  Babylon  is  represented  rather  as  an  act  of  divine  ven- 
geance, in  ch.  XIV  as  a  means  of  deliverance  to  Israel,  the  denunciations  of 
divine  wrath  being  there  clothed  in  the  form  of  a  triumphant  song  to  be 
sung  by  Israel  when  Babylon  is  fallen. — Cocceius,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
applies  this  part  of  the  prediction  secondarily  but  strictly  to  the  fall  of  Anti- 
christ. Many  other  of  the  older  writers  make  this  the  mystical  or  secondary 
sense  of  the  whole  prophecy,  because  they  understand  it  to  be  so  explained 
in  the  Apocalypse.  The  truth,  however,  seems  to  be,  first,  that  the  down- 
fall of  Babylon,  as  a  great  antitheocratic  power,  an  opponent  and  persecutor 
of  the  ancient  church,  affords  a  type  or  emblem  of  the  destiny  of  all  oppos- 
ing powers  nnder  the  New  Testament ;  and  secondly,  that  in  consequence 
of  this  analogy,  the  Apocalyptic  prophecies  apply  the  name  Babylon  to  the 
Antichristian  power.  But  these  Apocalyptic  prophecies  are  new  ones,  not 
interpretations  of  the  one  before  us. 


244  ISAIAH.  CHAP.  XIII. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 


After  a  title,  the  prophecy  opens  with  a  summons  to  the  chosen  instru- 
ments of  God's  righteous  judgments  upon  Babylon,  who  are  described  as 
mustered  by  the  Lord  himself,  and  then  appearing,  to  the  terror  and  amaze- 
ment of  the  Babylonians,  who  are  unable  to  resist  their  doom,  vs.  1-9.  The 
great  catastrophe  is  then  described  in  a  series  of  beautiful  figures,  as  an 
extinction  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  a  general  commotion  in  the  frame  of 
nature,  explained  by  the  prophet  himself  to  mean  a  fearful  visitation  of 
Jehovah,  making  men  more  rare  than  gold,  dispersing  the  strangers  resident 
at  Babylon,  and  subjecting  the  inhabitants  to  the  worst  inflictions  at  the 
hands  of  the  Medes,  who  are  expressly  mentioned  as  the  instruments  of  the 
divine  vengeance,  and  described  as  indifferent  to  gain  and  relentless  in  their 
cruelty,  vs.  1-18.  From  this  beginning  of  the  process  of  destruction,  we 
are  then  hurried  on  to  its  final  consummation,  the  completeness  of  which 
is  expressed  by  a  comparison  with  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah, 
and  by  a  prediction  that  the  site  of  Babylon  shall  not  be  frequented  even  by 
the  wandering  Arab,  or  by  shepherds  and  their  flocks,  but  only  by  solitary 
animals  whose  presence  is  itself  a  sign  of  utter  desolation,  vs.  19-22. 

V.  1.   The  Burden  of  Babylon  (or  threatening  prophecy  respecting  it), 
which  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  saw  (received  by  revelation).    There  are  two 
interpretations  of  stSs,  both  very  ancient.    The  one  makes  it  simply  mean  a 
declaration  (from   abj  to  utter),  or  more  specifically  a  divine  declaration,  a 
prophecy,  oracle,  or  vision.    The  Septuagint  translates  it  by  ooaaig  or  Soapa 
and  sometimes  by  tfpfi*  (from  Ktoa  to  receive).     The  Vulgate  has  visio. 
This  interpretation  is   adopted   by  Cocceius,   Vitringa,  J.  D.   Michaelis, 
Lowth,  and  all  the  recent  German  writers.     Henderson  has  sentence.     The 
other  explanation  gives  the  word  the  sense  of  a  minatory  prophecy.     So 
Luther,  Calvin,  and   in  our  own   day  Hengstenberg,  who   denies  that  the 
word  is  ever  applied  to  any  prediction  but  a  minatory  one,  even  Zech. 
12:  1   being  no  exception.     (See  his  exposition  of  Zech.  9:  1,  in  his 
Christologie,  vol.  2.  p.  102.)     He    also   alleges   that  the   word  is    never 
joined  like  d£a  with  the  name  of  God   or  of  any  other  person  but    the 
subject  of  the  prophecy.     For  these  reasons,  and  because  Ktoa  in  other 
connexions  always  means  a  burden,  it  is  best  to  retain  the  common  expla- 
nation, which  is  also  given  by  Barnes.     This  word  occurs  in  the  titles  of  all 
the  distinct  prophecies  of  this  second  part.     The  one  before  us  is  rejected 
by  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  as  the  addition  of  a  copyist  or  compiler,  but  without 
the  least  external  evidence  or  sufficient  reason. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  245 

V.  2.  The  attack  of  the  Modes  and  Persians  upon  Babylon  is  now  fore- 
told, not  in  the  proper  form  of  a  prediction,  nor  even  in  that  of  a  description, 
which  is  often  substituted  for  it,  but  in  that  of  an  order  from  Jehovah  to  his 
ministers  to  summon  the  invaders,  first  by  an  elevated  signal,  and  then  as 
they  draw  nearer  by  gestures  and  the  voice.  Upon  a  bare  hill  (i.  e.  one 
with  a  clear  summit,  not  concealed  by  trees)  set  up  a  signal,  raise  the  voice, 
(shout  or  cry  aloud)  to  them  (the  Medes  and  Persians),  and  let  them  enter 
(he  gates  of  the  (Babylonian)  nobles. — Forerius  takes  heed  as  the  proper 
name  of  a  mountain,  dividing  Chaldea  from  Persia  and  Media.  The 
Vulgate  renders  it  caliginosum,  which  Jerome  applies  to  the  spiritual  dark- 
ness of  the  Babylonians,  and  Grotius  to  the  fogs  and  mists  arising  from  the 
marshy  situation  of  the  city.  The  Targum  paraphrases  the  expression  as 
denoting  a  city  secure  and  confident  of  safety.  Kimchi,  Luther,  Calvin, 
and  most  of  the  early  Christian  writers,  with  Augusti,  Barnes,  and  Lee,  in 
later  times,  give  it  the  sense  of  lofty.  But  the  latest  lexicographers  and 
commentators  seem  to  be  agreed  that  the  true  sense  is  that  of  bare  or  bald. 
The  Septuagint  version  (oqov$  nedirov)  is  explained  by  Gesenius  as  descriptive 
of  a  mountain  with  a  flat  or  level  top,  but  the  older  writers  understand  it  as 
denoting  a  mountain  surrounded  by  a  plain,  a  metaphorical  description  of 
Babylon.  It  is  not,  however,  a  description  of  the  city,  but  an  allusion  to 
the  usual  method  of  erecting  signals  on  a  lofty  and  conspicuous  spot.  As 
the  expression  is  indefinite — a  mountain — there  is  no  need  of  supposing  with 
Vitringa  a  particular  allusion  to  the  Zagrian  mountains  between  Media  and 
Babylonia. — Jerome  and  Cocceius  suppose  the  angels  to  be  here  addressed  ; 
Knobel  and  others,  the  captive  Jews  ;  but  it  is  best  to  understand  the  words 
indefinitely  as  addressed  to  those  whose  proper  work  it  was  to  do  the  thing 
commanded.  Jehovah  being  here  represented  as  a  military  leader,  the 
order  is  of  course  to  be  conceived  as  given  to  his  heralds  or  other  officers. 
They  are  not  commanded  to  display  a  banner  as  a  sign  of  victory  (Cyril), 
but  to  erect  a  signal  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  troops.  There  is  no  need 
of  supposing  with  Vitringa  and  Henderson  that  V>ip  means  the  sound  of  the 
trumpet.  The  subjunctive  construction  of  ix^i  given  by  most  writers  (that 
they  may  enter),  is  not  only  unnecessary  but  much  less  expressive  than  the 
obvious  construction  which  supposes  the  command  to  be  continued.  The 
nobles  are  not  those  of  Media  and  Persia,  to  whose  doors  Clericus  supposes 
the  soldiers  to  be  summoned  for  the  purpose  of  enlisting  in  this  service,  but 
those  of  Babylon.  The  specific  sense  of  tyrants,  which  Gesenius  and  the 
later  Germans  put  upon  this  word,  is  wholly  unauthorized  by  the  analogy 
of  Job  21  :  28,  unless  we  assume  that  parallel  terms  must  always  be  synony- 
mous. Other  constructions  of  the  last  clause  have  been  given  by  the 
Septuagint  («yo/£«r£  oi  fSgprrfff) — the  Vulgate  (ingrediantur  portas  duces) 
— Schmidius    (ut  veniant   portae   principum) — Koppe    (voluntarii    portas 


246  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

aperite) — Doderlein  (ut  veniant  enses  evaginati  vol unta riorum) — J.  D. 
Michaelis  (dass  meine  Freywillige  sich  vor  meiner  Pforte  versammlen)  etc. 
All  these  involve  a  change  of  text  or  a  harshness  of  construction.  Lowth 
omits  drt,  as  of  no  use  and  rather  weakening  the  sentence.  On  the  con 
trary  it  strengthens  it  by  an  abrupt  reference  to  the  invaders  without  naming 
them,  as  being  too  well  known  already. 

V.  3.  The  enemies  thus  summoned  are  described  as  chosen,  designated 
instruments  of  the  divine  vengeance,  and  as  already  exulting  in  the  certainty 
of  their  success.  I  (myself)  have  given  command  (or  a  commission)  to  my 
consecrated  (chosen  and  appointed  instruments).  Yes  (literally,  also),  I 
have  called  (forth)  my  mighty  ones  (or  heroes)  for  (the  execution  of)  my 
wrath,  my  proud  exulters. — The  insertion  of  *5&  is  not  an  idiom  of  the  later 
Hebrew,  as  explained  by  Gesenius  (Lehrg.  p.  801),  but  as  Maurer  has 
correctly  stated,  an  emphatic  designation  of  God  as  the  sole  efficient  agent, 
I  myself,  or  I  even  I.  'Wpa  has  no  reference  to  the  moral  character  or  pur- 
pose of  the  instruments,  but  simply  to  God's  choice  and  preparation  of  them 
for  their  work.  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  makes  the  last  of  these  ideas, 
that  of  preparation,  too  exclusively  prominent.  Henderson  and  Knobel 
suppose  a  special  reference  to  the  religious  ceremonies  practised  before  going 
out  to  war  (1  Sam.  7  :  9.  13  :  9.  2Chron.  13 :  12.  Comp.  Gen.  14  :  14). 
But  as  this  would  not  be  strictly  applicable  to  the  Medes  and  Persians,  it 
seems  more  natural  to  suppose  that  tt)*ip  is  here  used  in  its  primary  and 
proper  sense  of  separating^  setting  apart,  or  consecrating  to  a  special  use  or 
service.  The  W  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  is  arbitrarily  omitted 
by  Gesenius  and  DeWette,  but  retained  by  Ewald  and  Umbreit.  To  call 
out  is  here  explained  by  Rosenmuller  as  denoting  specially  a  call  to  military 
service.  It  may,  however,  have  the  general  sense  of  summoning  or  calling 
upon  by  name.  ^"HSS  is  commonly  regarded  as  simply  equivalent  to  ^lmpia ; 
but  Knobel  understands  the  former  as  a  specific  epithet  of  chiefs  or  officers. 
Augusti,  Barnes,  and  most  of  the  older  writers,  understand  the  last  words  of 
the  verse  as  meaning  those  ivho  exult  in  my  greatness,  or  in  my  great  plan 
(Barnes,)  Kimchi  and  Jarchi ;  those  by  whom  I  glorify  myself.  But  the 
other  modern  writers  have  adopted  the  construction  of  Cocceius  and  Vitringa, 
who  refer  the  suffix  to  the  first  word  or  the  whole  phrase,  a  common  Hebrew 
idiom  (Gesen.  <§>  119.  5) — my  exulters  of  pride,  i.  e.  my  proud  exulters. 
This  may  be  understood  as  a  description  of  the  confidence  with  which  they 
anticipated  victory  ;  but  most  interpreters  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  natural 
character  of  the  Persians  as  described  by  Croesus  in  Herodotus  (cpvory 
sovteg  v@Qi(J7ai) — by  Herodotus  himself  (vofxl^ovtsg  savrovg  shai  av&Q(07Z(ov 
liaxQW  ia  navta  aQiazovg) — by  iEschylus  (v7ieQX0[i7T0i  ayav) — and  by  Am- 
mianus  Marcellinus   (abundantes   inanibus  verbis  insanumque  loquentes  et 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  247 

ferum,  magnidici  et  graves  ac  tctri,  mlnaces  juxta  in  adversis  rebus  ac  pros- 
peris,  callidi,  superbi).  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  Septuagint 
version  (jafyortee  ufta  xu\  vftniXovrt*). 

V.  4.  The  Prophet,  in  his  own  person,  now  describes  the  enemies  of 
Babylon  who  had  just  been  summoned,  as  actually  on  their  way.  He  hears 
a  confused  noise,  which  he  soon  finds  to  be  that  of  confederated  nations 
forming  the  army  of  Jehovah  against  Babylon.  The  voice  (or  sound)  of  a 
multitude  in  the  mountains  !  the  likeness  of  much  people  !  the  sound  of  a 
tumult  of  kingdoms  of  nations  gathered  (or  gathering  themselves)  /  Jehovah 
of  Hosts  mustering  (i.  e.  inspecting  and  numbering)  a  host  of  battle  (i.  e.  a 
military  host)  !  The  absence  of  verbs  adds  greatly  to  the  vividness  of 
the  description.  The  sentence  really  consists  of  a  series  of  exclamations, 
describing  the  impressions  made  successively  upon  the  senses  of  an  eye  and 
ear-witness.  The  expression  is  weakened  by  supplying  is  heard  (Junius) 
or  there  is  (Cocceius).  Gesenius  and  Ewald  insert  hark !  at  the  beginning 
of  the  sentence,  which  is  better,  though  unnecessary.  By  the  mountains 
some  suppose  Media  to  be  meant,  to  which  Henderson  adds  Armenia  and 
the  other  hilly  countries  from  which  Cyrus  drew  his  forces.  This  supposes 
the  movement  here  described  to  be  that  of  the  levy  or  conscription.  But 
it  seems  more  natural  to  understand  it,  as  most  writers  do,  of  the  actual 
advance  of  the  invaders.  The  mountains  then  will  be  those  dividing  Baby- 
lonia from  Media  or  Persia. — The  symbolical  interpretation  of  mountains  as 
denoting  states  and  kingdoms  (Musculus),  is  entirely  out  of  place  here. 
rwofi  is  commonly  explained  here  as  equivalent  to  as  or  like ;  but  J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  Rosenmiiller  seem  to  take  it  in  its  proper  sense  of  likeness  or 
similar  appearance,  and  refer  to  the  indistinct  view  of  a  great  multitude 
approaching  from  a  distance.  The  reference  to  sound  before  and  after- 
wards, makes  the  reference  of  this  clause  to  the  sense  of  sight  improbable. — 
The  rendering  of  V^'^  ^P  tumultuous  noise  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  departure 
from  the  form  of  the  original,  but  a  weakening  of  the  description.  The 
object  presented  is  not  a  tumultuous  noise  merely,  but  the  noise  of  an  actual 
tumult. — Calvin, -Gesenius,  and  others,  separate  kingdoms  from  nations,  as 
distinct  particulars.  The  construction  kingdoms  of  nations,  which  is  retained 
by  Ewald,  is  the  one  required  by  the  Masoretic  accents,  and  affords  a  better 
sense. — The  Niphal  participle  may  be  taken  in  a  reflexive  sense,  in  which 
case  the  description  would  refer  to  the  original  assembling  of  the  troops.  There 
is  no  necessity  however  for  departing  from  the  ordinary  usage,  according  to 
which  it  describes  the  nations  as  already  assembled. — It  is  commonly  agreed 
that  there  is  here  a  direct  reference  to  the  mixture  of  nations  in  the  army  of 
Cyrus.  Besides  the  Persians  and  the  Medes,  Xenophon  speaks  of  the  Arme- 
nians, and  Jeremiah  adds  the  names  of  other  nations  (Jer.  50:  9.  51 :  27). 


243  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

Most  interpreters  suppose  the  event  here  predicted  to  be  subsequent  in  date  to 
the  overthrow  of  Croesus,  while  Knobel  refers  it  to  the  first  attack  of  Cyrus 
upon  Babylonia,  recorded  in  the  third  book  of  the  Cyropedia.  But  these 
distinctions  seem  to  rest  upon  a  false  view  of  the  passage  as  a  description  of 
particular  marches,  battles  etc.,  rather  than  a  generic,  picture  of  the  whole 
series  of  events  which  ended  in  the  downfall  of  Babylon.  For  a  just  view 
of  the  principles  on  which  such  prophecies  should  be  explained,  with  par- 
ticular reference  to  that  before  us,  see  Stuart  on  the  Apocalypse,  vol.  2, 
p.  143.  The  title  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  may  here  seem  to  be  used  unequivo- 
cally in  the  sense  of  God  of  Battles,  on  account  of  the  obvious  allusion  to 
the  word  host  following.  But  as  this  explanation  of  the  title  is  not  justified 
by  scriptural  usage  (vide  supra,  ch.  1  :  9),  it  is  better  to  understand  the 
words  as  meaning  that  the  Lord  of  the  Hosts  of  Heaven  is  now  mustering 
a  host  on  earth.  Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  a  single  manuscript,  reads 
nvnhsbfor  the  battle  or  for  battle.  But  the  last  word  appears  to  be  added 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  and  qualifying  that  before  it.  This  was 
the  more  necessary  as  the  same  word  had  been  just  used  in  another  sense. 
He  who  controls  the  hosts  of  heaven  is  now  engaged  in  mustering  a  host  of 
tear,  i.  e.  an  army.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  construe  these  last  words 
with  the  following  verse — the  Lord  of  Hosts  has  commanded  an  armed 
nation  to  come  etc. — which  is  a  forced  and  ungrammatical  construction. — 
The  substitution  of  the  present  for  the  participle  in  the  English  Version 
(mustereth)  and  most  others,  greatly  impairs  the  force  and  uniformity  of  the 
expression  by  converting  a  lively  exclamation  into  a  dispassionate  assertion. 
Hendewerk  carelessly  omits  the  last  clause  altogether. 

V.  5.  Coming  from  a  distant  land  (literally,  a  land  of  distance) ,  from 
the  (visible  or  apparent)  end  of  the  heavens — Jehovah  and  the  instruments 
(or  weapons)  of  his  wrath — to  lay  waste  (or  destroy)  the  whole  land  (of 
Babylonia). — Junius  and  most  of  the  later  writers  construe  n^xn  as  a  present 
(they  come  etc.).  It  is  better  to  make  it  agre^e  with  xss  as  a  collective, 
and  to  continue  the  construction  from  the  foregoing  verse,  as  above. — The 
end  of  heaven  is  of  course  regarded  by  Gesenius  as  a  proof  of  ignorance  in 
the#writer.  Others  more  reasonably  understand  it  as  a  strong  but  natural 
hyperbole.  The  best  explanation  is  that  given  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and 
Barnes,  who  suppose  the  Prophet  to  refer  to  the  horizon  or  bounding  line  of 
vision.  He  is  not  deliberately  stating  from  what  region  they  set  out,  but 
from  what  point  he  sees  them  actually  coming,  viz.  from  the  remotest  point 
in  sight.  This  view  of  the  expression,  not  as  a  geographical  description, 
but  as.  a  vivid  representation  of  appearances,  removes  the  necessity  of 
explaining  how  Media  or  Persia  could  be  called  a  distant  land  or  the 
extremity   of    heaven.     Schmidius    evades    this    imaginary   difficulty   by 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  249 

applying  the  terms  to  the  distant  nations  from  which  Cyrus  drew  his  forces 
— Clericus  by  referring  distant  not  to  Babylonia  but  Judea,  and  supposing 
the  Prophet  to  be  governed  in  his  use  of  language  by  the  habitual  associa- 
tions of  his  Jewish  readers.  Cocceius,  partly  for  this  very  reason,  under- 
stands the  whole  passage  as  a  threatening  against  Judah. — Jehovah  and 
the  weapons  of  his  wrath.  According  to  the  Michlol  Jophi,  and  is  here 
put  for  with,  and  some  translators  actually  make  the  substitution,  which  is 
wholly  unnecessary.  The  host  which  Jehovah  was  before  said  to  be  mus- 
tering is  now  represented  as  consisting  of  himself  and  the  weapons  of  his 
wrath.  This  intimation  of  his  presence,  his  co-operation,  and  even  his 
incorporation,  with  the  invading  host,  adds  greatly  to  the  force  of  the 
threatening.  The  Hebrew  word  a^a  corresponds  to  our  implements  in  its 
widest  sense,  as  including  instruments  and  vessels.  It  has  here  the  active 
sense  of  weapons,  while  in  Rom.  9:  22,  Paul  employs  a  corresponding 
Greek  phrase  in  the  passive  sense  of  vessels.  Weapons  of  wrath  are  the 
weapons  which  execute  it,  vessels  of  wrath  the  vessels  which  contain  it. — 
The  ambiguous  phrase  pun  bs  is  explained  by  the  Septuagint  as  meaning 
the  whole  world  (naaav  i\v  olxov[itvTji) ,  and  this  interpretation  is  approved 
by  Umbreit,  on  the  ground  that  Babylon  was  a  type  or  symbol  of  human 
opposition  to  divine  authority.  In  its  primary  import  it  no  doubt  denotes 
the  land  of  Babylonia  or  Chaldea.  Cocceius  alone  understands  the  land  of 
Israel  or  Judah  to  be  meant,  in  accordance  with  his  singular  hypothesis 
already  mentioned. 

V.  6.  Howl  (ye  Babylonians,  with  distress  and  fear),ybr  the  day  of 
Jehovah  (his  appointed  time  of  judgment)  if  near.  Like  might  (i.  e.  a 
mighty  stroke  or  desolation)  from  the  Almighty  it  shall  come. — Calvin 
points  out  a  lusus  verborum  in  the  combination  of  ^&5  almighty,  and  ntt  deso- 
lation or  destruction,  both  derived  from  *njb.  As  if  he  had  said,  you  shall 
know  with  what  good  reason  God  is  called  *iflj.  This  is  described  by 
Calvin  as  a  concinna  allusio  ad  etymologiam,  by  Barnes  as  a  "  paronomasia 
or  pun,  a  figure  of  speech  quite  common  in  the  Scriptures."  Paronomasia 
and  pun  are  not  synonymous,  and  the  application  of  the  latter  term  in  this 
case,  if  not  irreverent,  is  inexact.  Gesenius  denies  that  it  is  even  a  parono- 
masia in  the  proper  sense.  He  also  take  a  as  a  caph  veritatis — '  like  a 
destruction  from  the  Almighty  (as  it  is).'  But  Hendewerk  takes  it  in  its 
proper  sense — a  destruction  as  complete  and  overwhelming  as  if  it  were  an  act 
of  reckless  violence.  Kimchi  explains  the  clause  to  mean,  as  a  destruction 
(not  from  man,  but)  from  a  mighty  one  who  cannot  be  resisted  or  avoided. 
Vitringa  labours  to  explain  and  justify  the  derivation  of  a  divine  name  from 
a  root  of  evil  import  like  *fW  to  plunder  or  destroy.  But  this  etymological 
difficulty  is   removed   by  the  later  lexicographers,  who  give  the  root  the 


250  ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XIII. 

general  sense  of  being  strong  or  mighty,  as  in  Arabic.  The  specific  sense 
of  tempest  or  destructive  storm,  which  Gesenius  puts  upon  Itt  here  and  in 
Joel  1  :  15,  is  perfectly  gratuitous.  Jehovah's  days  are  well  defined  by 
Cocceius  :  in  genere  dies  Domini  dicuntur  diviniius  constitutae  opportunities 
quibus  judicium  suum  exercet.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  2 :  12.)  This  day  is  said 
to  be  near,  not  absolutely  with  respect  to  the  date  of  the  prediction,  but 
relatively,  either  with  respect  to  the  perceptions  of  the  Prophet,  or  with 
respect  to  what  had  gone  before.  For  ages  Babylon  might  be  secure  ;  but 
after  the  premonitory  signs  just  mentioned  should  be  seen,  there  would  be  no 
delay.  The  words  of  the  verse  are  supposed  to  be  uttered  in  the  midst  of 
the  tumult  and  alarm  of  the  invasion. 

V.  7.  Therefore  (because  of  this  sudden  and  irresistible  attack)  all 
hands  shall  sink  (fall  down,  be  slackened  or  relaxed),  and  every  heart  of 
man  shall  melt.  Clericus  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  etymology  of  WSk  as 
denoting  frailty  or  infirmity  (omne  aegrorum  mortalium  cor)  ;  but  most  in- 
terpreters explain  the  phrase  as  simply  meaning  every  mortal  heart  or  the 
heart  of  every  mortal.  Cocceius  understands  by  the  sinking  of  the  hands 
the  loss  of  active  power,  and  by  the  melting  of  the  heart,  the  fear  of  coming 
evil.  Junius  supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  hands  or  body  and  the 
heart  or  mind.  But  both  the  clauses,  in  their  strict  sense,  are  descriptive  of 
bodily  effects,  and  both  indicative  of  mental  states.  Each  of  the  figures  is 
repeatedly  used  elsewhere.  (See  Jos.  7  :  5.  Ps.  22  :  13.  Jer.  50:  43.  Job 
4:  3.)  Knobel  quotes  from  Ovid  the  analogous  expression,  cecidere  illis 
animique  manusque. 

V.  8.  And  they  (the  Babylonians)  shall  be  confounded — pangs  and 
throes  shall  seize  (them) — like  the  travailing  (woman)  they  shall  writhe — 
each  at  his  neighbour,  they  shall  wonder — faces  of  flames  (shall  be)  their 
faces. — The  Vulgate,  Peshito,  and  Lowth,  connect  the  first  word  with  the 
verse  preceding,  which  is,  to  say  the  least,  unnecessary. — The  translation 
fear  or  tremble,  is  too  weak  for  i^nns,  which  includes  the  ideas  of  violent 
agitation  and  extreme  perplexity.  The  Septuagint  strangely  gives  to  a^-vs 
here  the  sense  of  ambassadors  or  messengers  (vide  infra,  ch.  18 :  2.  57 :  9), 
which  is  precluded  by  the  whole  connexion,  and  especially  by  the  combi- 
nation with  a^nn. — Solomon  ben  Melech  explains  ",  in  )vnn*  as  an  anoma- 
lous suffix  used  instead  of  b.  Lowth  as  usual  corrects  the  text  by  reading 
turnx"1,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Peshito, 
which  supply  the  suffix.  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Ewald  and  Knobel,  adopt  a 
construction  mentioned  by  Kimchi,  which  makes  pangs  and  throes  the 
object  not  the  subject  of  the  verb — they  shall  take  pangs  and  throes — as  we 
speak  of  a  house  taking  fire  or  a  person  taking  a  disease,  and  as  Livy  says 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  251 

capere  mctum.  This  form  of  expression  occurs,  not  only  in  Arabic,  but  in 
Job  18:  20.  21:6.  The  construction  is  also  recommended  by  its  render- 
ing the  suflix  unnecessary,  and  by  its  giving  to  )1!W  the  same  subject  with 
the  verbs  before  and  after  it.  The  objection  to  it,  strongly  urged  by  Hende- 
werk,  is  that  the  construction,  even  in  Job,  is  Arabic  not  Hebrew,  the  idiom 
of  the  latter  beins  clear  from  other  cases  where  the  same  verb  and  nouns 
are  combined  (Isai.  21:  3.  Jer.  13:  21),  or  the  same  nouns  with  other 
verbs  (1  Sam.  4:  19.  Isai.  66  :  7.  Jer.  22  :  23.  Dan.  10:16.  Hos.  13:13), 
or  other  nouns  and  verbs  of  kindred  meaning  (Ex.  15:  14.  Isai.  35:  10. 
Deut.  28:  2),  but  in  all  without  exception  the  noun  is  the  subject  not  the 
object  of  the  verb.  The  construction  thus  proved  to  be  the  common  one, 
may  at  least  be  safely  retained  here,  the  rather  as  the  collocation  of  the 
words  is  evidently  in  its  favour. — The  sense  of  trembling  given  to  *pWP  by 
several  of  the  recent  writers  is  too  weak.  The  best  translation  seems  to  be 
that  of  Henderson — they  shall  writhe — i.  e.  with  pain.  The  expression 
wonder  at  each  other  occurs  once  in  historical  prose  (Gen.  43 :  33).  It 
seems  here  to  denote  not  simply  consternation  and  dismay,  but  stupefaction 
at  each  other's  aspect  and  condition — q.  d.  each  man  at  his  friend  shall 
stand  aghast. — The  last  clause  is  referred  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  to  the  Medes 
and  Persians,  and  explained  as  a  description  of  their  violence  and  fierceness, 
in  which  sense  the  same  figures  are  employed  in  Isaiah  66:  15  and  Rev. 
9:  17.  It  is  commonly  and  much  more  naturally  understood  as  a  continued 
description  of  the  terror  and  distress  of  the  Chaldeans.  Aben  Ezra  men- 
tions an  interpretation  of  fc^hb  as  the  proper  name  of  an  African  race 
descended  from  Mizraim  the  son  of  Ham  (Gen.  10:  13.  1  Chron.  1  :  11), 
and  probably  the  same  with  the  Lubim  (2  Chron.  16:8)  or  Libyans. 
1  Their  faces  shall  be  (like)  the  faces  of  Africans '  i.  e.  black  with  horror 
and  despair.  This  explanation  is  approved  by  Gataker ;  but  all  other 
writers  seem  to  take  firb  as  the  plural  of  -nb  a  flame.  The  point  of 
comparison,  according  to  Kimchi,  is  redness,  here  referred  to  as  a  natural 
symptom  of  confusion  and  shame.  But  as  this  seems  inappropriate  in  the  case 
before  us,  Hitzig  and  Knobel  understand  the  aspect  indicated  to  be  one  of 
paleness,  as  produced  by  fear.  Calvin,  Gesenius,  and  many  others,  under- 
stand the  glow  or  flush  produced  by  anguish  and  despair  to  be  intended. 
For  the  classical  usage  of  fire  and  flame  as  denoting  a  red  colour,  see 
Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  torn.  2,  p.  743.  In  the  last  edition  of  his  Lexicon  by 
Robinson,  the  phrase  before  us  is  explained  to  mean  "  ruddy  and  burning 
with  eagerness,"  an  expression  applicable  only  to  the  conquerors.  Instead 
of  eagerness,  the  Thesaurus  has  internum  animi  acstum. — Cocceius  refers 
this,  as  well  as  the  preceding  verses,  to  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  inva- 
sions of  the  Holy  Land.     He  also  makes  the  verbs  descriptive  presents,  in 


252  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

which  he  is  followed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans.     There  is, 
however,  no  need  of  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the  future. 

V.  9.  All  this  must  happen  and  at  a  set  time — for  behold  the  day  of 
Jehovah »  cometh — terrible — and  wrath  and  heat  of  anger — to  'place  (or 
make)  the  land  a  waste — and  its  sinners  he  (or  it,  the  day)  will  destroy 
from  it  (or  out  of  it). — According  to  Cocceius,  the  mention  of  Jehovah 
throughout  this 'passage,  sometimes  in  the  first  person,  sometimes  in  the 
third,  has  reference  to  the  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead. — He  also 
renders  **it3K  as  an  abstract  noun  (immanitas),  in  which  he  is  followed  by 
Vitringa,  while  Ewald  gives  it  an  adverbial  sense  (grausamer  Art),  but  most 
interpreters  regard  it  as  an  adjective  synonymous  with  m&H.  The  applica- 
tion of  this  term  to  God,  or  to  his  judgments,  seems  to  have  perplexed  inter- 
preters. Crudelem  diem  vocat  (says  Jerome)  non  merito  sui  sed  populi. 
Non  est  enim  crudelis  qui  crudeles  jugulat,  sed  quod  crudelis  patientibus 
esse  videatur.  Nam  et  htro  suspensus  paiibulo  crudelem  judicem  putat. 
"  The  word  (says  Barnes)  stands  opposed  here  to  mercy,  and  means  that 
God  would  not  spare  them."  It  is  dubious,  however,  whether  the  word  in 
any  case  exactly  corresponds  to  the  crudelis  of  the  Vulgate  or  the  English 
cruel.  The  essential  idea  is  rather  that  of  vehemence,  destructiveness,  etc. 
It  is  rendered  accordingly  in  various  forms,  without  any  implication  of  a  moral 
kind,  by  the  Septuagint  (avlatos),  Lowth  (inexorable),  Gesenius  (furchtbar), 
and  others. — The  following  words,  as  well  as  ^t=a,  are  construed  by  Coc- 
ceius as  in  apposition  with  rw?  ftp — the  day  itself  being  described  as  cruelty, 
wrath  etc.  Gesenius,  in  his  commentary,  repeats  d*p,  fearful,  and  (a  day 
of)  wrath  etc.  In  his  translation  he  supplies  another  word — full  of  anger 
etc.  Ewald  and  others  supply  a  preposition — with  wrath  etc.  Another 
possible  construction  would  be  to  suppose  a  change  of  subject — c  The  day 
of  Jehovah  is  coming  and  (so  is)  his  wrath  etc.'  In  that  case,  JW1  is  of 
course  the  subject  of  VWB*.  Upon  the  other  supposition  it  may  agree  with 
&\\  but  without  a  change  of  meaning.  The  most  vigorous  though  not  the 
most  exact  translation  of  these  epithets  is  Luther's  (grausam,  grimmig,  zor- 
nig.)  Most  interpreters,  from  Jarchi  downwards,  understand  "pan  to  be 
Babylonia  ;  but  the  Septuagint  makes  it  mean  the  earth  or  world  (oocoi;- 
ftevqv)  as  in  v.  5.  This  explanation  is  revived  by  the  three  latest  writers 
whom  I  have  consulted,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  the  last  of  whom 
understands  the  term  as  an  allusion  to  the  universal  sway  of  the  Babylonian 
empire. — The  moral  causes  of  the  ruin  threatened  are  significantly  intimated 
by  the  prophet's  calling  the  people  of  the  earth  or  land  its  sinners.  As  the 
national  offences  here  referred  to,  Vitringa  enumerates  pride  (v.  11.  14:  11. 
47:  7,  8),  idolatry  (Jer.  50:  38),  tyranny  in  general  (14:  12,  17),  and 
oppression  of  God's  people  in  particular  (47  :  6). — In  the  laying  of  the  land 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XIII.  253 

waste,  Junius  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  the  submerging  of  the  Baby- 
lonian plains,  by  the  diversion  of  the  waters  of  Euphrates. 

V.  10.  The  day  of  Jehovah  is  now  described  as  one  of  preternatural 
and  awful  darkness,  in  which  the  very  sources  of  light  shall  be  obscured. 
This  natural  and  striking  figure  for  sudden  and  disastrous  change  is  of  fre- 
quent occurrence  in  Scripture  (see  Isai.  24 :  23.  34  :  4.    Ezek.  32 :  7,  8. 
Joel  2:  10.  3:  15.  Amos  8:  9.  Matth.  24:  29).     Well  may  it  be  called 
a  day  of  wrath  and  terror — for  the  stars  of  the  heavens  and  their  signs  (or 
constellations)  shall  not  shed  their  light — the  sun  is  darkened  in  his  going 
forth — and  the  moon  shall  not  cause  its  light  to  shine. — It  can  only  be  from 
misapprehension  of  the  connexion  between  this   verse  and  the  ninth,  that 
Lowth  translates  ^s  yea ! — According  to  Hitzig  and  Knobel,  the  darkening 
of  the  stars  is  mentioned  first,  because  the  Hebrews  reckoned  the  day  from 
sunset. — Vitringa  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  the  image  here  presented 
to  be  that  of  a  terrific  storm,  veiling  the  heavens,  and  concealing  its  lumi- 
naries.    But  grand  as  this  conception  is,  it  falls  short  of  the  Prophet's  vivid 
description,  which  is  not  that  of  transient  obscuration  but  of  sudden  and 
total  extinction. — The  abrupt  change  from  the  future  to  the  preterite  and 
back  again,  has  been  retained  in  the  translation,  although  most  modern  ver- 
sions render  all  the  verbs  as  presents.     From  simply  foretelling  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  stars,  the  Prophet  suddenly  describes  that  of  the  sun  as  if  he  saw 
it,  and  then  adds  that  of  the  moon  as  a  necessary  consequence. — Clericus 
explains  c^oa  as  a  synonyme  of  boa  in  the  sense  of  hope  or  confidence, 
and  refers  the  suffix  to  the  Babylonians,  who  were  notoriously  addicted  to 
astrology  and  even  to  astrolatry.     The  stars  of  heaven  which  are  (literally, 
and  or  even)  their  confidence  etc.     This  ingenious  exposition  seems  to  have 
commended  itself  to  no  other  writer,  though  Malvenda  does  likewise  sup- 
pose a  special  allusion  to  the  astrological  belief  and  practice  of  the  Baby- 
lonians.    Theodotion    and    Aquila    retain    the    Hebrew   word    (/eaiXea^). 
Jerome  gives  the  vague  sense  splendour,  the  Peshito  that  of  strength  or  host. 
Calvin  and  others  render  it  by  sidera.     Vitringa  makes  it  mean  the  planets, 
Junius  the  constellations,  as  distinguished  from  the  stars.     Rabbinical  and 
other  writers  make  b^bs  the  name  of  a  particular  star,  but  differ  as  to  its 
identity.     The  latest  writers  have  gone  back  to  the  version  of  the  Septua- 
gint  (6  'QqIwv)  and  Luther  (sein  Orion),  except  that  they  restore  the  plural 
form  of  the  original.     The  proofs  of  the  identity  of  Nimrod  and  Orion,  as 
hunters  transferred  to  the  heavens,  in  the  oriental  and  classical  mythology, 
have  been  arrayed,  with  a  minuteness  of  detail  and  a  profusion  of  learning 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  exegetical  importance  of  the  subject,  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  in  his  Supplement  ad  lexx.  Hebr.  p.  1319  seq. — Gesenius  on  the 
passage  now  before  us — and  Lee  on  Job  9:9.     It  is  commonly  agreed  that 


254  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

the  word,  which  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  the  singular  (Job  9:  9.  38:  31. 
Amos  5 :  8),  is  here  used  in  the  plural  to  give  it  a  generic  sense.  Orions 
i.  e.  Orion  and  other  brilliant  constellations.  To  express  this  idea  most  of 
the  recent  versions  exchange  the  proper  name  for  an  appellative.  The  word 
Bilder  used  by  the  latest  German  writers  seems  to  have  reference  to  the 
signs  of  the  Zodiac.  Ewald  alone  retains  the  primary  meaning  (seine 
Orionen).  In  this,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  spirit  of  the  passage  is  no 
where  more  felicitously  given  than  in  Luther's  energetic  paraphrase.  Die 
Sterne  am  Himmel  una1  sein  Orion  scheinen  nicht  helle ;  die  Sonne  gehet 
finster  auf  und  der  Mond  scheinet  dunkel. 

V.  11.  The  Prophet  according  to  his  custom  (vide  supra,  ch.  1  :  22. 
5:  7.  11  :  9),  now  resolves  his  figures  into  literal  expressions,  showing  that 
the  natural  convulsions  just  predicted  are  to  be  understood  as  metaphorical 
descriptions  of  the  divine  judgments.  And  I  will  visit  upon  the  world  (its) 
wickedness  (i.  e.  manifest  my  presence  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  it) — and 
upon  the  wicked  their  iniquity — and  I  will  cause  to  cease  the  arrogance  of  pre- 
sumptuous sinners — and  the  pride  of  tyrants  (or  oppressors)  J  will  humble. 
The  primary  meaning  of  ^nn  is  retained  in  the  versions  of  Junius  (orbis 
habitabilis)  and  Cocceius  (frugiferam  terram),  who  regards  the  use  of  this 
word  as  a  proof  that  the  prophecy  relates  to  Israel  (populus  per  verbum 
Dei  cultus.)  It  is  no  doubt  a  poetical  equivalent  to  "pa,  and  is  here  ap- 
plied to  the  Babylonian  empire,  as  embracing  most  of  the  known  world. 
Thus  the  Roman  empire,  as  Lowth  shows,  was  called  universus  orbis  Roma- 
nus,  and  Minos,  in  Ovid,  speaks  of  Crete  as  meus  orbis.  Hitzig  makes  ^sn 
hsi  mean  the  evil  world,  but  the  parallel  expression  which  immediately  fol- 
lows, and  the  analogy  of  Jer.  23  :  2.  Ex.  20 :  5,  are  decisive  in  favour  of  the 
usual  construction. — The  Septuagint  makes  t^x^s  synonymous  with  tsntait 
Cimeprjcpdvwv) ,  and  the  Vulgate  makes  it  simply  mean  the  powerful  (fortium). 
But  active  violence  is  an  essential  part  of  the  meaning.  The  English  Ver- 
sion and  some  others  adopt  the  sense  of  terrible  (from  jnS  to  terrify)  ;  but 
the  latest  interpreters  prefer  the  meaning  given  by  Calvin,  Clericus,  and 
others  (tyrannorum). 

V.  12.  To  the  general  description  in  the  foregoing  verse  he  now  adds  a 
more  specific  threatening  of  extensive  slaughter,  and  a  consequent  diminu- 
tion of  the  population,  expressed  by  a  strong  comparison.  I  will  make  man 
more  scarce  (or  rare)  than  pure  gold,  and  a  human  being  than  the  ore  of 
Ophir. — TBiaa  and  tia  cannot  here  denote  a  difference  of  rank,  as  la^tf  and 
tna  sometimes  do,  because  neither  of  them  is  elsewhere  used  in  the  distinct- 
ive sense  of  vir  or  artjo.  They  are  really  poetical  equivalents,  like  man 
and  mortal  or  human  being,  which  last  expression  is  employed  by  Henderson. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

tb   is  regarded  as  a  proper  name  by  Bochart,  who  applies  it  to  the  Coro- 
mandel  coast,  and  by  Huet,  who  supposes  it  to  be  a  contraction  of  tt*.x,  and 
this  a  variation  of  VBi«.     Gill  speaks  of  some  as  identifying  tB  with  Fez, 
and  vbix  with  Peru.     tB  and  era  are  either  poetical  synonymes  of  -fit,  or 
emphatic  expressions  for  the  purest,  finest,  and  most  solid  gold.     The  Sep- 
tuagint  version  of  the  last  words  is  6  XiOog  6  tv  2ovqi'(),  instead  of  which  the 
Arabic  translation  founded  on  it  has  the  stone  which  (comes)  from  India. 
The  disputed  question  as  to  the  locality  of  Ophir,  although  not  without  his- 
torical and  archaeological  importance,  can  have  no  effect  upon  the  meaning 
of  this  passage.    Whether  the  place  meant  be  Ceylon,  or  some  part  of  con- 
tinental India,  or  of  Arabia,  or  of  Africa,  it  is  here  named  simply  as  an 
Eldorado,  as  a  place  where  gold  abounded,  either  as  a  native  product  or  an 
article  of  commerce,  from  which  it  was  brought,  and  with  which  it  was 
associated  in  the  mind  of  every  Hebrew  reader.     For  the  various  opinions 
and  the  arguments  by  which  they  are  supported,  see  the  geographical  works 
of  Bochart  and  Rosenmuller,  Winer's  Realworterbuch,  Gesenius's  Thesau- 
rus, and  Henderson's  note  upon  the  verse  before  us. — Instead  of  making 
rare  or  scarce,  the  meaning  put  upon  Tpix  by  Jerome  and  by  most  modern 
writers,  some  retain  the  original  and  strict  sense  of  making  dear  or  costly, 
with  allusion  to  the  impossibility  of  ransoming  the  Babylonians  from  the 
Medes   and   Persians.     This  interpretation,  which  Henderson   ascribes   to 
Grotius,  was  given  long  before  by  Calvin,  and  is  indeed  as  old  as  Kimchi. 
Barnes,  and  some  older  writers,  understand  the  words  as  expressive  of  the 
difficulty  with  which  defenders  could  be  found  for  the  city.     Henderson 
speaks  of  some  as  having  applied  the  verse,  in  an  individual  sense,  to  Cyrus 
and  to  the  Messiah.     The  latter  application  is  of  Jewish  origin  and  found 
in  the  book  Zohar.     Jarchi  explains  the  verse  as  having  reference  to  the 
honour  put  upon  the  prophet  Daniel  as  the  decipherer  of  the  writing  on  the 
wall.     The  Targum  makes  it  a  promise  of  protection  to  the  godly  and 
believing  Jews  in  Babylon.     Cocceius,  while  he  gives  the  words  the  sense 
now  usually  put  upon  them,  as  denoting  paucity  of  men  in  consequence  of 
slaughter,  still  refers  them  to  the  small  number  of  Jews  who  were  carried 
into  exile. — From  the  similar  forms  -ppix  and  vaiit  at  the  beginning  and 
the  end  of  the  sentence,  Gesenius  infers  that  a  paronomasia  was  intended 
by  the  writer,  which  as  usual  he  imitates,  with  very  indifferent  success,  by 
beginning  his  translation  with  seltener  and  ending  it  with  seltene  Schdize. 
Henderson,  with  great   probability,   denies  that  the  writer  intended   any 
assonance  at  all.     On  the  modern  theory  of  perfect  parallelisms,  it  would  be 
easy  to  construct  an  argument  in  favour  of  understanding  vbix   as  a  verb, 
and  thereby  rendering  the  clauses  uniform.     Such  a  conclusion,  like  many 
drawn  from  similar  premises  in  other  cases,  would  of  course  be  worthless. 


256  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

V.  13.  The  figurative  form  of  speech  is  here  resumed,  and  what  was 
before  expressed  by  the  obscuration  of  the  heavenly  bodies  is  now  denoted 
by  a  genera]  commotion  of  the  frame  of  nature.  Therefore  I  will  make  the 
heavens  tremble,  and  the  earth  shall  shake  (or  be  shaken)  out  of  its  place 
in  the  wrath  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts  and  in  the  day  of  the  heat  (or  fierceness) 
of  his  anger,  Henderson  translates  "jS"^?  because,  which  is  not  only  incon- 
sistent with  the  usage  of  the  words,  but  wholly  unnecessary.  Therefore 
may  either  mean  because  of  the  wickedness  mentioned  in  v.  11,  or  for  the 
purpose  of  producing  the  effect  described  in  v.  12.  In  the  last  clause,  some 
give  a  the  sense  of  by  or  on  account  of  in  both  members.  Others  explain 
the  first  a  thus,  but  take  the  other  in  its  proper  sense  of  in.  It  is  highly 
improbable,  however,  that  the  particle  is  here  used  in  two  different  senses, 
and  the  best  construction,  therefore,  is  the  one  which  lets  the  second  n 
determine  the  meaning  of  the  first — in  the  wrath  i.  e.  during  (or  in  the 
time  of)  the  wrath. 

V.  14.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass,  that)  like  a  roe  (or  antelope) 
chased  (or  driven  by  the  hunters)  and  like  sheep  with  none  to  gather  them 
(literally,  like  sheep  and  there  is  no  one  gathering) — each  to  his  people, 
they  shall  turn — and  each  to  his  country,  they  shall  flee. — The  English 
Version  seems  to  make  the  earth  the  subject  of  ri^fi,  with  which,  however, 
it  does  not  agree  in  gender.  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  make  the  verb  indefinite, 
one  shall  be.  Aben  Ezra  and  Jarchi  supply  Babylon  or  the  Babylonians. 
The  best  construction  is  that  given  by  DeWette,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  who 
take  rnri  in  its  common  idiomatic  sense  of  coming  to  pass,  happening. 
Kimchi  refers  the  verse  to  the  foreign  residents  in  Babylon  ("?cf>  "?d:d  Oi?D 
^333) — what  Jeremiah  calls  the  mingled  people  (50 :  37)  and  iEschylus 
the  ndfifiixTov  ofiov  of  Babylon.  Calvin  supposes  an  allusion  not  to  foreign 
residents  but  mercenary  troops  or  allies.  Clericus  applies  the  last  clause 
to  these  strangers,  and  the  first  to  the  Babylonians  themselves,  which  is 
needless  and  arbitrary.  The  *3Xj  according  to  Bochart  and  Gesenius,  is  a 
generic  term  including  all  varieties  of  roes  and  antelopes.  The  points  of 
comparison  are  their  timidity  and  fleetness.  The  figure  of  scattered  sheep, 
without  a  gatherer  or  shepherd,  is  a  common  one  in  Scripture.  Junius  con- 
nects this  verse  with  the  twelfth,  and  throws  the  thirteenth  into  a  parenthe- 
sis, a  construction  complex  in  itself  and  so  little  in  accordance  with  the 
usage  of  the  language,  that  nothing  short  of  exegetical  necessity  can  warrant 
its  adoption. 

V.  15.  The  flight  of  the  strangers  from  Babylon  is  not  without  reason, 
for  every  one  found  (there)  shallbe  stabbed  (or  thrust  through),  and  every  one 
joined  (or  joining  himself  to  the  Babylonians)  shall  fall  by  the  sword.     All 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  257 

interpreters  agree  that  I  general  massacre  is  here  described,  although  they 
differ  as  to  the  precise  and  connexion  of  the  clauses.     Some  suppose 

a  climax.     Thus  Junius  explains  the  verse  to  mean  that  not  only  the  robust 
but    the  decrepit   (nop:  from    meo  to  consume)  should  be  slain,  and  the 
same  interpretation  is  mentioned  by  Kimchi.     Hitzig  takes  the  sense  to  be 
that  every  one,  even  he  who  joins  himself  (i.  e.  goes  over  to  the  enemy), 
shall    perish  ;  they   will   give   no  quarter.     Others    suppose   an   antithesis, 
though  not  a  climax.    Gesenius  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his  lexicon  explains 
the  verse  as  meaning  that  he  who  is  found  in  the  street,  and  he  who  with- 
draws himself  into  the  house,  shall  perish  alike.     Lowth  makes  the  anti- 
thesis between  one  found  alone  and  one  joined  with  others.      Umbreit 
supposes  an  antithesis  not  only  between   Nsras  and  nsoa,  but  also  between 
np*p  and  mm  biB-1 — the  one  clause  referring  to  the  first  attack  with  spears, 
the  other  to  the  closer  fight  with  swords  hand  to  hand.     J.  D.  Michaelis 
changes  the  points,  so  as  to  make  the  contrast  between  him  who  remains 
and  him  who  flees,  and  Henderson  extracts  the  same  sense  from  the  com- 
mon text,  avowedly  upon  the  ground  that   riEDa  must  denote  the  opposite  of 
a«ES3.     But  even  the  most  strenuous  adherent  of  the  theory  of  perfect  paral- 
lelisms must  admit  that  they  are  frequently  synonymous  and  not  invariably 
antithetical.     In  this  case  there  is  no  more  need  of  making  the  participles 
opposite  in  meaning  than  the  nouns  and  verbs.     And  as  all  except  Umbreit 
(and  perhaps  Knobel)  seem  agreed  that  to  be  thrust  through  and  to  fall  by 
the  sword  are  one  and  the  same  thing,  there  is  every  probability  that  both 
the  clauses  have  respect  to  the  same  class  of  persons.     Upon  this  most 
natural  and  simple  supposition,  we  may  either  suppose  airsa  and   nstJi  to 
denote  the  person  found  and  the  person  caught,  as  Ewald  and  Gesenius  do, 
or  retain  the  old  interpretation  found  in  Kimchi,  which  connects  the  verse 
directly  with  the  one  before  it,  and  applies  both  clauses  to  the  foreigners  in 
Babylon,  every  one  of  whom  still  found  there,  and  still  joined  with  the 
besieged,  should  be  surely  put  to  death. 

V.  16.  The  horrors  of  the  conquest  shall  extend  not  only  to  the  men, 
but  to  their  wives  and  children.  And  their  children  shall  be  dashed  to 
pieces  before  their  eyes,  their  houses  shall  be  plundered  and  their  wives 
ravished.  The  same  thing  is  threatened  against  Babylon  in  Ps.  137 :  9, 
in  retaliation  for  the  barbarities  practised  in  Jerusalem  (2  Chr.  36 :  17, 
Lam.  5:  11).  The  horror  of  the  threatening  is  enhanced  by  the  addition 
of  before  their  eyes.  (Compare  ch.  1 :  7  and  Deut.  28 :  3 1 ,  32.)  Hitzig  coolly 
alleges  that  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  is  copied  from  Zech.  14 :  2,  to 
which  Knobel  adds,  that  the  spoiling  of  the  houses  is  here  out  of  place. — 
For  the  textual  reading  ruten  the  Keri,  here  and  elsewhere,  substitutes 
fi523tt>n  as  a  euphemistic  emendation. 

17 


258  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 


V.  17.  The  Prophet  now,  for  the  first  time,  names  the  chosen  instru- 
ments of  Babylon's  destruction.  Behold  I  (am)  stirring  up  against  them 
Madai  (Media  or  the  Medes),  who  will  not  regard  silver,  and  (as  for)  gold, 
they  will  not  take  pleasure  in  it  (or  desire  it).  Here,  as  in  Jer.  51  :  11,  28, 
the  Medes  alone  are  mentioned,  as  the  more  numerous  and  hitherto  more 
powerful  nation,  to  which  the  Persians  had  long  been  subject,  and  were 
still  auxiliary.  Or  the  name  may  be  understood  as  comprehending  both, 
which  Vitringa  has  clearly  shown  to  be  the  usage  of  the  classical  historians, 
by  citations  from  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  and  Plutarch.  Indeed,  all  the 
names  of  the  great  oriental  powers  are  used,  with  more  or  less  latitude  and 
license,  by  the  ancient  writers,  sacred  and  profane.  As  the  Medes  did  not 
become  an  independent  monarchy  till  after  the  date  of  this  prediction,  it 
affords  a  striking  instance  of  prophetic  foresight,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Keith, 
Barnes,  and  Henderson,  have  clearly  shown.  It  is  chiefly  to  evade  such 
proofs  of  inspiration  that  the  modern  Germans  assign  these  chapters  to  a 
later  date. — *jb  is  properly  the  name  of  the  third  son  of  Japhet,  from  whom 
the  nation  was  descended.  At  the  date  of  this  prediction  they  formed  a 
part  of  the  Assyrian  empire,  but  revolted  at  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  inva- 
sion of  Syria  and  Israel.  Their  first  king  Dejoces  was  elected  about  700 
years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  His  son  Phraortes  conquered  Persia,  and 
the  united  Medes  and  Persians,  with  the  aid  of  the  Babylonians,  subdued 
Assyria  under  the  conduct  of  Cyaxares  I.  The  conquest  of  Babylon  was 
effected  in  the  reign  of  Cyaxares  II.  by  the  Median  army,  with  an  auxiliary 
force  of  thirty  thousand  Persians,  under  the  command  of  Cyrus,  the  king's 
nephew. — In  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  Hitzig  and  Knobel  understand  the 
Medes  to  be  described  as  so  uncivilized  as  not  to  know  the  value  of  money. 
Others  suppose  contempt  of  money  to  be  mentioned  as  an  honourable  trait 
in  the  national  character,  and  Vitringa  has  pointed  out  a  very  striking  coin- 
cidence between  this  clause  and  the  speech  which  Xenophon  ascribes  to 
Cyrus.  "Av§Q£$  Mqdoi,  xctt  7zdvzsg  ol  naqovtzq,  fya  vpag  olSa  oayaig,  on  ovze 
XQrjfidrcov  fcopevoi  avv  tfiol  shifters  v..  1. 1.  The  most  natural  interpretation  is, 
however,  that  the  thirst  of  blood  would  supersede  the  thirst  of  gold  in  the 
conquerors  of  Babylon,  So  that  no  one  would  be  able  to  secure  his  life  by 
ransom.  Even  Cocceius  admits  that  this  verse  relates  to  the  conquest  of 
Babylon,  but  only,  as  he  thinks,  by  a  sudden  change  of  subject,  or  at  least 
a  transition  from  God's  dealings  with  his  people  to  his  dealings  with  their 
enemies. 

V.  18.  And  bows  shall  dash  boys  in  pieces — and  the  fruit  of  the  womb 
they  shall  not  pity — on  children  their  eye  shall  not  have  mercy. — Augusti 
needlessly  continues  the  construction  from  the  foregoing  verse — '  they  shall 
not  delight  in  gold,  but  in  bows  which  etc'     The  Septuagint  has  the  bows 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  259 

of  the  young  men  (to£tvuata  vturiv/.m)  wliich  is  inconsistent  with  the  form 
of  the  original.  The  Vulgate,  Luther,  and  Calvin,  '  with  their  hows  they 
shall  dash  in  pieces. '  But  the  feminine  form  njtftrjR  must  agree  with 
fvinrifl,  as  Aben  Ezra  has  observed.  Clericus  and  Knobel  think  that  bows 
are  here  put  for  bowmen,  which  is  a  forced  construction  and  unnecessary. 
Hendewerk  supposes  the  bow  to  be  mentioned,  as  in  many  other  cases,  as 
one  of  the  most  common  and  important  weapons.  Other  interpreters  appear 
to  be  agreed,  that  there  is  special  allusion  to  the  large  bows  and  skilful 
archery  of  the  ancient  Persians,  as  described  by  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  and 
Ammianus  Marcellinus.  Kimchi's  extravagant  idea  that  the  Medes  are  here 
described  as  shooting  children  from  their  bows  instead  of  arrows,  is  strangely 
copied  by  some  later  writers.  There  is  more  probability  in  the  opinion, 
that  they  are  represented  as  employing  their  large  massive  bows  instead  of 
clubs.  There  is  no  serious  objection,  however,  to  the  common  supposition, 
that  the  effect  described  is  that  of  arrows  or  of  bows  used  in  the  ordinary 
manner.  The  strong  term  dash  in  pieces  is  employed  instead  of  one  more 
strictly  appropriate,  with  evident  allusion  to  its  use  in  v.  16.  There  is  no 
need  of  giving  n^nrs  the  sense  of  young  men.  It  rather  denotes  children  of 
both  sexes,  as  D^n  does  when  absolutely  used.  Hendewerk  and  some  older 
writers  understand  by  the  fruit  of  the  womb  the  unborn  child  (see  Hos, 
14:  1.  Amos  1:  13.  2  Kings  8:  12,  15,  16).  Gesenius  and  others  make 
it  simply  equivalent  to  children,  as  in  Gen.  30 :  2.  Deut.  7 :  13.  Lam.  2  :  20. 
The  cruelty  of  the  Medes  seems  to  have  been  proverbial  in  the  ancient 
world.  Diodorus  Siculus  makes  one  of  his  characters  ask,  "  What  destroyed 
the  empire  of  the  Medes  ?"  Their  cruelty  to  those  beneath  them." 
Compassion  is  ascribed  to  the  eye,  says  Knobel,  because  it  is  expressed  in 
the  looks.  Kimchi  observes  that  this  is  the  only  case  in  which  the  future 
of  wn  has  u  instead  of  o. 

V.  19.  From  the  very  height  of  splendour  and  renown,  Babylon  shall 
be  reduced  not  only  to  subjection  but  to  annihHation.  And  Babylon,  the 
beauty  (or  glory)  of  kingdoms,  the  ornament,  the  pride,  of  the  Chaldees, 
shall  be  like  Godys  overthrowing  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — i.  e.  shall  be 
totally  destroyed  in  execution  of  a  special  divine  judgment.  According  ta 
Kimchi,  "vas  means  delight  ("fB"),  and  nisbEE  n3^  that  in  which  the  nations 
delighted.  It  is  now  agreed,  however,  that  its  meaning,  as  determined  both 
by  etymology  and  usage,  is  beauty.  The  same  Hebrew  word  is  applied  as  a 
distinctive  name  to  a  class  of  animals  remarkable  for  grace  of  form  and 
motion.  (Vide  supra,  v.  14.)  The  beauty  of  kingdoms  is  by  most  writers 
understood  comparatively  as  denoting  the  most  beautiful  of  kingdoms,  either 
in  the  proper  sense  or  in  that  of  royal  cities  (see  1  Sam.  27:  5).  But 
Knobel  understands  the  words  more  strictly  as  denoting  the  ornament  of  an 
empire  which  included  various  tributary  kingdoms.     This  agrees  well  with 


260  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 


the  next  clause  which  describes  the  city  as  the  ornament  and  pride  of  the 
Chaldees.  The  origin  of  this  name,  and  of  the  people  whom  it  designates, 
is  doubtful  and  disputed.  But  whether  the  Chaldees  were  of  Semitic  origin 
or  not,  and  whether  they  were  the  indigenous  inhabitants  of  Babylonia  or  a 
foreign  race  imported  from  Armenia  and  the  neighbouring  countries,  it  is 
plain  that  the  word  here  denotes  the  nation  of  which  Babylon  was  the 
capital.  For  a  statement  of  the  archaeological  question,  see  Gesenius's 
Thesaurus,  torn.  2.  p.  719 — Winer's  Realworterbuch,  vol.  1.  p.  253 — and 
Henderson's  note  on  Isaiah  23:  13. — By  most  interpreters  jut)  rvnasn  are 
construed  together  as  denoting  ornament  of  pride  i.  e.  proud  ornament.  The 
same  sense,  with  a  slight  modification,  is  expressed  in  the  Vulgate  (inclyta 
superbia)  and  by  Luther  (herrliche  Pracht).  Equally  simple,  and  perhaps 
more  consistent  with  the  Masoretic  interpunction,  is  the  separate  construc- 
tion of  the  words  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  (ornatus  excellentiaque),  still 
better  expressed,  without  supplying  and,  by  the  Dutch  Version  (de  heer- 
lickheyt,  de  hoovaerdigheyt) — and  in  English  by  Barnes  (the  ornament, 
the  pride). — In  the  last  clause,  the  verbal  noun  pOWwa  is  construed  with  the 
subject  in  the  genitive  and  the  object  in  the  accusative  (Gesen.  Lehrg. 
p.  6S8).  It  has  been  variously  paraphrased — as  when  God  overthrew  So- 
dom and  Gomorrah — like  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  which  God  overthrew — 
like  the  overthrow  with  which  God  overthrew  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — like 
the  overthrow  of  God  with  which  he  overthrew  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — but 
the  exact  sense  of  the  Hebrew  words  is  that  already  given — like  God's 
overthrowing  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  This  is  a  common  formula  in  Scrip- 
ture for  complete  destruction,  viewed  as  a  special  punishment  of  sin.  (Vide 
supra,  ch.  1 :  7,  9.)  The  allegation  of  the  Seder  Olam,  as  cited  both  by 
Jarchi  and  Kimchi,  that  Babylon  was  suddenly  destroyed  by  fire  from 
heaven  in  the  second  year  of  Darius,  is  a  Jewish  figment  designed  to  recon- 
cile the  prophecy  with  history.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  destruction 
of  the  city  was  by  slow  degrees,  successively  promoted  by  the  conquests  of 
Cyrus,  Darius  Hystaspes,  Alexander  the  Great,  Antigonus,  Demetrius,  the 
Parthians,  and  the  founding  of  the  cities  of  Seleucia  and  Ctesiphon.  Strabo 
calls  Babylon  fisydlrtv  eQTjfAiav.  Pausanias  says  that  in  his  day  ovfih  hi  ?tv 
ri  firj  r£i%og.  In  Jerome's  time  this  wall  only  served  as  the  enclosure  of  a 
park  or  hunting  ground.  From  this  apparent  disagreement  of  the  prophecy 
with  history,  Cocceius  seems  disposed  to  infer  that  it  relates  not  to  the 
literal  but  spiritual  Babylon.  The  true  conclusion  is  that  drawn  by  Calvin, 
that  the  prophecy  does  not  relate  to  any  one  invasion  or  attack  exclusively, 
but  to  the  whole  process  of  subjection  and  decay,  so  completely  carried  out 
through  a  course  of  ages,  that  the  very  site  of  ancient  Babylon  is  now  dis- 
puted. This  hypothesis  accounts  for  many  traits  in  the  description  which 
appear  inconsistent  only  in  consequence  of  being  all  applied  to  one  point  of 
time  and  one  catastrophe  exclusively. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  261 

V.  20.  ft  shall  not  be  inhabited  forever  (i.  c.  it  shall  never  again  or  no 
more  be  inhabited)  and  it  shall  not  be  dwelt  in  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion (literally,  to  generation  and  generation) — neither  shall  the  Arab  pitch 
tent  there — neither  shall  shepherds  cause  (their  flocks)  to  lie  there.  The 
conversion  of  a  populous  and  fertile  district  into  a  vast  pasture-ground,  how- 
ever rich  and  well  frequented,  implies  extensive  ruin,  but  not  such  ruin  as 
is  here  denounced.  Babylon  was  not  even  to  be  visited  by  shepherds,  nor 
to  serve  as  the  encamping  ground  of  wandering  Arabs.  The  completeness 
of  the  threatened  desolation  will  be  seen  by  comparing  these  expressions 
with  ch.  5:  5,  17.  7:  21.  17:  2,  where  it  is  predicted  that  the  place  in 
question  should  be  for  flocks  to  lie  down  with  none  to  make  them  afraid. 
So  fully  has  this  prophecy  been  verified  that  the  Bedouins,  according  to  the 
latest  travellers,  are  even  superstitiously  afraid  of  passing  a  single  night  upon 
the  site  of  Babylon.  The  simplest  version  of  the  first  clause  would  be,  she 
shall  not  dwell  forever,  she  shall  not  abide  etc.  And  this  construction  is 
actually  given  by  Calvin  and  Ewald.  But  the  great  majority  of  writers 
follow  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  in  ascribing  to  the  active  verbs  a  passive 
or  intransitive  sense.  Kimchi  explains  this  usage  on  the  ground  that  the  city  is 
made  to  represent  its  inhabitants — she  dwells  for  her  people  dwell.  This 
intransitive  usage  of  the  verbs  is  utterly  denied  by  Hengstenberg  on  Zecha- 
riah  12:  6  (Christol.  II.  286),  but  maintained  against  him  by  Gesenius  in 
his  Thesaurus  (II.  635).  The  result  appears  to  be,  that  in  a  number  of 
cases,  the  intransitive  version  is  required  by  the  context.  The  only  ob- 
jection to  it  in  the  case  before  us  is  that  it  does  not  here  seem  absolutely 
necessary.  The  choice  therefore  lies  between  the  general  usage  of  2tty  and 
ptt  as  active  verbs,  and  their  special  usage  in  connexion  with  prophecies  of 
desolation.  The  sense  of  sitting  on  a  throne,  ascribed  to  atr  here  by 
Gataker,  and  elsewhere  by  Hengstenberg,  does  not  agree  so  well  with  that 
of  the  other  verb  and  with  the  general  import  of  the  threatening.  On  the 
whole,  the  passive  or  neuter  construction,  though  not  absolutely  necessary, 
is  the  most  satisfactory  and  natural. — brn  is  explained  by  the  rabbinical 
interpreters  as  a  contraction  of  &rnO,  the  Kal  of  which  is  used  in  the  sense 
of  pitching  a  tent  or  encamping,  Gen.  13:  12,  18.  (See  Gesenius  §  67. 
Rem.  2.)  This  explanation  is  adopted  by  most  modern  writers.  Rosen- 
miiller  and  Ewald,  however,  make  the  form  a  Hiphil  one  for  b-ns\  Hitzio- 
takes  it  likewise  as  a  Hiphil,  but  from  ^ns,  to  lead  (flocks)  to  water,  which 
is  also  found  connected  with  the  Hiphil  of  fift  in  Ps.  23 :  2.  Hendewerk 
objects  that  although  this  verb  is  repeatedly  used  by  Isaiah,  it  is  always  in 
the  Piel  form  (ch.  40:  11.  49:  10.  51  :  18).  The  Hiphil  occurs  nowhere 
else,  and  the  contraction  assumed  by  Hitzig  rarely  if  at  all.  The  derivation 
from  ^nx  is  assumed  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  and  Vulgate  Version. — 
Barnes  applies  this  clause  to  the  encampment  of  caravans,  and  supposes  it 


262  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

to  mean  that  wayfarers  will  not  lodge  there  even  for  a  night.  But  the  men- 
tion of  shepherds  immediately  afterwards  renders  it  more  probable  that  the 
allusion  is  to  the  nomadic  habits  of  the  Bedouins,  who  are  still  what  Strabo 
represents  them,  half  shepherds  and  half  robbers  (oxqvirai  hjajoixoi  nvsg  xal 
7ioi/*H'tx<  t),  passing  from  one  place  to  another  when  their  plunder  or  their 
pasture  fails.  Gesenius  suggests  that  WJ  may  here  be  used  generically  to 
denote  this  class  of  persons  or  their  mode  of  life.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
however,  that  Arabians,  properly  so  called,  do  actually  overrun  the  region 
around  Babylon  with  their  flocks  and  herds,  although,  as  we  have  seen,  they 
refuse  to  take  up  their  abode  upon  the  doomed  site  of  the  vanished  city. 

V.  21.  Having  excluded  men  and  the  domesticated  animals  from  Baby- 
lon, the  Prophet  now  tells  how  it  shall  be  occupied,  viz.  by  creatures  which 
are  only  found  in  deserts,  and  the  presence  of  which  therefore  is  a  sign  of 
desolation.  In  the  first  clause  these  solitary  creatures  are  referred  to  in  the 
general ;  the  other  clause  specifies  two  kinds  out  of  the  many  which  are  else- 
where spoken  of  as  dwelling  in  the  wilderness.  But  there  (instead  of  flocks) 
shall  lie  down  desert  creatures — and  their  houses,  (those  of  the  Babylonians) 
shall  be  filled  with  howls  or  yells — and  there  shall  dwell  the  daughters  of 
the f  ostrich — and  shaggy  beasts  (or  wild  goats)  shall  gambol  there.  The 
contrast  is  heightened  by  the  obvious  allusion  in  ism  and  "OS®  to  the  *p£n 
and  ixw  of  v.  20.  As  if  he  had  said,  flocks  shall  not  lie  down  there,  but 
wild  beasts  shall  ;  man  shall  not  dwell  there,  but  the  ostrich  shall.  The 
meaning  evidently  is  that  the  populous  and  splendid  city  should  become  the 
home  of  animals  found  only  in  the  wildest  solitudes.  To  express  this  idea, 
other  species  might  have  been  selected  with  the  same  effect.  The  endless 
discussions  therefore  as  to  the  identity  of  those  here  named,  however  laud- 
able as  tending  to  promote  exact  lexicography  and  natural  history,  have 
little  or  no  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  the  passage.  The  fullest  state- 
ment of  the  questions  in  detail  may  be  found  in  Bochart's  Hierozoicon  and 
in  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  under  the  several  words  and  phrases.  Nothing 
more  will  be  here  attempted  than  to  settle  one  or  two  points  of  comparative 
importance.  Many  interpreters  regard  the  whole  verse  as  an  enumeration 
of  particular  animals.  Thus  DM  has  been  rendered  wild-cats,  monkeys, 
vampyres ;  c^nx  owls,  iveasels,  dragons  etc.  etc.  This  has  arisen  from 
the  assumption  of  a  perfect  parallelism  in  the  clauses.  It  is  altogether 
natural,  however,  to  suppose  that  the  writer  would  first  make  use  of  general 
expressions  and  afterwards  descend  to  particulars.  This  supposition  is  con- 
firmed by  the  etymology  and  usage  of  8**31,  both  which  determine  it  to 
mean  those  belonging  to  or  dwelling  in  the  desert.  In  this  sense,  it  is 
sometimes  applied  to  men  (Ps.  72 :  9.  74:  14),  but  as  these  are  here 
excluded  by  the  preceding  verse,  nothing  more  was  needed  to  restrict  it  to  wild 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  iiihi 


animals,  to  which  it  is  also  applied  in  ch.  34:  14  and  Jer.  50:  39.  This 
is  now  commonly  agreed  to  be  the  meaning,  even  by  those  who  give  to 
D">nx  a  specific  sense.  The  same  writers  admit  that  o^ns  properly  denotes 
the  howls  or  cries  of  certain  animals,  and  only  make  it  mean  the  animals 
themselves,  because  such  are  mentioned  in  the  other  clauses.  But  if  n*"- 
baa  the  generic  sense  which  all  now  give  it,  the  very  parallelism  of  the 
clauses  favours  the  explanation  of  dtix  in  its  original  and  proper  sense  of 
howls  or  yells,  viz.  those  uttered  by  the  d^e.  The  common  version 
(doleful  creatures)  is  too  indefinite  on  one  of  these  hypotheses,  and  too 
specific  on  the  other.  The  daughter  of  the  ostrich  is  an  oriental  idiom  for 
ostriches  in  general,  or  for  the  female  ostrich  in  particular.  The  old  trans- 
lation owls  seems  to  be  now  universally  abandoned.  The  most  interesting 
poin^  in  the  interpretation  of  this  verse  has  reference  to  the  word  en-:-. 
The  history  of  its  interpretation  is  so  curious  as  to  justify  more  fulness  of 
detail  than  usual.  It  has  never  been  disputed  that  its  original  and  proper 
sense  is  hairy,  and  its  usual  specific  sense  he-goats.  In  two  places  (Lev. 
17 :  7.  2  Chron.  11 :  15),  it  is  used  to  denote  objects  of  idolatrous  worship, 
probably  images  of  goats,  which  according  to  Herodotus  were  worshipped 
in  Egypt.  In  Chronicles  especially  this  supposition  is  the  natural  one, 
because  the  word  is  joined  with  D"bas  calves.  Both  there  and  in  Leviticus, 
the  Septuagint  renders  it  [xaTatoig  vain  things,  i.  e.  false  gods,  idols.  But  the 
Targum  on  Leviticus  explains  it  to  mean  demons  (rT-),  and  the  same  inter- 
pretation is  given  in  the  case  before  us  by  the  Septuagint  (daipona),  Tar- 
gum ("fTr),  and  Peshito  (jijjk,).  The  Vulgate  in  Leviticus  translates  the 
word  daemonibus,  but  here  pilosi.  The  interpretation  given  by  the  other 
three  versions  is  adopted  also  by  the  Rabbins,  Aben  Ezra,  Jarchi,  Kimchi, 
etc.  It  appears  likewise  in  the  Talmud  and  early  Jewish  books.  From 
this  traditional  interpretation  of  bTWO,  here  and  in  ch.  34:  14,  appears  to 
have  arisen,  at  an  early  period,  a  popular  belief  among  the  Jews,  that 
demons  or  evil  spirits  were  accustomed  to  haunt  desert  places  in  the  shape 
of  goats  or  other  animals.  And  this  belief  is  said  to  be  actually  cherished 
by  the  natives  near  the  site  of  Babylon  at  the  present  day. — Let  us  now 
compare  this  Jewish  exposition  of  the  passage  with  its  treatment  among 
Christians.  To  Jerome,  the  combination  of  the  two  meanings  goats,  and 
demons,  seems  to  have  suggested  the  Pans,  Fauns,  and  Satyrs  of  the  clas- 
sical mythology,  imaginary  beings  represented  as  a  mixture  of  the  human 
form  with  that  of  goats,  and  supposed  to  frequent  forests  and  other  lonely 
places.  This  idea  is  carried  out  by  Calvin,  who  adopts  the  word  satyri  in 
his  version,  and  explains  the  passage  as  relating  to  actual  appearances  of 
Satan  under  such  disguises.  Luther,  in  like  manner,  renders  it  Feldgeisier. 
Vitringa  takes  another  step,  and  understands  the  language  as  a  mere  conces- 
sion or  allusion  to  the  popular  belief,  equivalent  to  saying,  the  solitude  of 
Babylon  shall  be  as  awful  as  if  occupied  by  Fauns  and  Satyrs — there,  if 


264  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII. 

anywhere,  such  beings  may  be  looked  for.     In  explaining  how  B^Stt  came 
to  be  thus  used,  he  rejects  the  supposition  of  actual  apparitions  of  the  evil 
spirit,  and  ascribes  the  usage  to  the  fact  of  men's  mistaking  certain  shaggy- 
apes  (or  other  animals  approaching  to  the  human  form)  for  incarnations  of 
the  devil.     Forerius  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  the  animals  themselves 
to  be  here  meant.     The  latter  uses  in  his  version  the  word  Waldteufel 
(wood-devils,  forest-demons),  but  is  careful  to  apprize  the  reader  in  a  note 
that  it  is  the  German  name  for  a  species  of  ape  or  monkey,  and  that  the 
Hebrew   contains   no    allusion    to    the  devil.      The   same   word    is    used 
by  Gesenius  and  others  in  its  proper  sense.     Saadias,  Cocceius,  Clericus, 
and  Henderson,  return  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word,   to 
wit,  wild  goats.     But   the   great  majority  of  modern  writers   tenaciously 
adhere  to  the  old  tradition.     This  is  done,  not  only  by  the  German  neo- 
logists,  who  lose  no  opportunity  of  finding  a  mythology  in  Scripture,  but 
by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Stuart,  in  his  exposition  of  Rev.  11:2  and  his  Ex- 
cursus on  the  Angelology  of  Scripture  (Apocal.  II.  403).     The  arguments 
in  favour  of  this  exposition  are  (1)  the  exegetical  tradition  of  the  Jews — 
(2)  their  popular  belief,  and  that  of  the  modern  orientals,  in  such  appari- 
tions— (3)  our  Saviour's  allusion  (Matth.  12:  43)  to  the  unclean  spirit,  as 
walking  through  dry  places,  seeking  rest  and  finding  none — (4)  the  descrip- 
tion of  Babylon  in  Rev.  18:  2,  as  the  abode  of  demons,  and  the  hold  (or 
prison-house)  of  every  foul  spirit  and  of  every  unclean  and  hateful  bird, 
with  evident  allusion  to  the  passage  now  before  us.     Upon  this  state  of  the 
case,  it  may  be  remarked  (L)  that  even  on  the  supposition  of  a  reference  to 
evil  spirits,  there  is  no  need  of  assuming  any  concession  or  accommodation 
to  the  current  superstitions.     If  a^n*^B  denotes  demons,  this  text  is  a  proof, 
not  of  a  popular  belief,  but  of  a  fact,  of  a  real   apparition   of  such  spirits 
under  certain  forms.     (2)  The  Jewish  tradition  warrants  the  application  of 
the  Hebrew  term  to  demons,  but  not  to  the  fauns  or  satyrs  of  the  Greek  and 
Roman  fabulists.     (3)  The   fauns  and  satyrs  of  the  classical  mythology 
were  represented  as  grotesque  and  frolicsome,  spiteful  and  mischievous,  but 
not  as  awful  and  terrific  beings,  such  as  might  naturally  people  horrid  soli- 
tudes.    (4)  The   popular  belief  of  the  Jews  and  other  orientals  may  be 
traced  to  the  traditional  interpretation  of  this  passage  (see  Stuart  ubi  supra), 
and  this  to  the  Septuagint  version.     But  we  do  not  find  that  any  of  the 
modern  writers  adopt  the  Septuagint  version  of  nasi  man  ^aeiQ7]veg)  or  of 
G^x  in  the  next  verse  (ovoxEvravQoi).     If  these  are  mere  blunders  or  con- 
ceits, so  may  the  other  be,  however  great  its  influence  on  subsequent  opinions. 
(5)  There  is  probably  no  allusion  in  Matth.  12 :  43  to  this  passage,  and  the 
one  in  Rev.  18:  2  is  evidently  founded  on  the  Septuagint  version,  which 
was  abundantly  sufficient  for  the   purpose  of  a  symbolical  accommodation. 
What  the  Greek  translators  incorrectly  gave  as  the  meaning  of  this  passage 
might  be  said  with  truth  of  the  spiritual  Babylon.     (6)  The  mention  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIII.  265 

demons  in  a  list  of  beasts  and  birds  is  at  variance  not  only  with  the  favourite 
canon  of  parallelisms,  but  with  the  natural  and  ordinary  usages  of  language. 
Such  a  combination  and  arrangement  as  the  one  supposed — ostriches — de- 
mons— wolves — jackals — would  of  itself  be  a  reason  for  suspecting  that  the 
second  term  must  really  denote  some  kind  of  animal,  even  if  no  such  usage 
existed.  (7)  The  usage  of  c^iw,  as  the  name  of  an  animal,  is  perfectly 
well  defined  and  certain.  Even  in  Lev.  17 :  7  and  2  Chron.  11  :  15,  this, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  the  only  natural  interpretation. — The  result  appears  to 
be  that  if  the  question  is  determined  by  tradition  and  authority,  enrnr  de- 
notes demons  ;  if  by  the  context  and  the  usage  of  the  word,  it  signifies  wild 
goats,  or  more  generically  hairy,  shaggy  animals.  According  to  the  principles 
of  modern  exegesis,  the  latter  is  clearly  entitled  to  the  preference  ;  but  even 
if  the  former  be  adopted,  the  language  of  the  text  should  be  regarded,  not 
as  "  a  touch  from  the  popular  pneumatology  "  (as  Rev.  18:  2  is  described 
by  Stuart  in  loc),  but  as  the  prediction  of  a  real  fact,  which,  though  it 
should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity,  is  altogether  possible,  and  there- 
fore, if  alleged  in  Scripture,  altogether  credible.  The  argument  in  favour 
of  the  strict  interpretation,  and  against  the  traditional  and  current  one,  is 
presented  briefly,  but  with  great  strength  and  clearness,  in  Henderson's  note 
upon  the  passage. 

V.  22.  And  wolves  shall  howl  in  his  (the  king  of  Babylon's)  palaces, 
and  jackals  in  the  temples  of  pleasure.  And  near  to  come  is  her  (Baby- 
lon's) time,  and  her  days  shall  not  be  prolonged. — The  names  d^k  and 
d^n  have  been  as  variously  explained  as  those  in  v.  21.  The  latest  writers 
seem  to  be  agreed  that  they  are  different  appellations  of  the  jackal,  but  in 
order  to  retain  the  original  variety  of  expression,  substitute  another  animal 
in  one  of  the  clauses,  such  as  wolves  (Gesenius),  wild-cats  (Ewald)  etc. 
As  d^k,  according  to  its  etymology,  denotes  an  animal  remarkable  for  its 
cry,  it  might  be  rendered  hyenas,  thereby  avoiding  the  improbable  assump- 
tion that  precisely  the  same  animal  is  mentioned  in  both  clauses.  But 
whatever  be  the  species  here  intended,  the  essential  idea  is  the  same  as  in 
the  foregoing  verse,  viz.  that  Babylon  should  one  day  be  inhabited  exclu- 
sively by  animals  peculiar  to  the  wilderness,  implying  that  it  should  become 
a  wilderness  itself.  The  contrast  is  heightened  here  by  the  particular  men- 
tion of  palaces  and  abodes  of  pleasure,  as  about  to  be  converted  into  dens 
and  haunts  of  solitary  animals.  This  fine  poetical  conception  is  adopted 
by  Milton  in  his  sublime  description  of  the  flood — 

And  in  their  palaces, 
Where  luxury  late  reigned,  sea-monsters  whelped 
And  stabled. 

The  meaning  of  r^^x,  in  every  other  case  where  it  occurs,  is  widows, 


266  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

in  which  sense  some  rabbinical  and  other  writers  understand  it  here.  But 
as  it  differs  only  in  a  single  letter  from  rra&TO  palaces,  and  as  h  and  *i  are 
sometimes  interchanged,  it  is  now  commonly  regarded  as  a  mere  orthogra- 
phical variation,  if  not  an  error  of  transcription.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  the  two  forms  were  designedly  confounded  by  the  writer,  in  order  to 
suggest  both  ideas,  that  of  palaces  and  that  of  widowhood  or  desolation. 
This  explanation  is  adopted  in  the  English  Version,  which  has  palaces  in 
the  margin,  but  in  the  text  desolate  houses.  Henderson  avoids  the  repeti- 
tion of  palaces,  by  rendering  the  second  phrase  temples  of  pleasure,  which 
affords  a  good  sense,  and  is  justified  by  usage.  The  older  writers  explain  K» 
as  denoting  a  responsive  cry  ;  but  the  latest  lexicographers  make  answer  a 
secondary  meaning  of  the  verb,  which  they  explain  as  properly  denoting  to 
sing,  or  to  utter  any  inarticulate  sound,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject. Hence  it  is  here  translated  howl. — The  last  clause  of  the  verse  may 
be  strictly  understood,  but  in  application  to  the  Jewish  captives  in  the 
Babylonian  exile,  for  whose  consolation  the  prophecy  was  partly  intended. 
Or  we  may  understand  it  as  denoting  proximity  in  reference  to  the  events 
which  had  been  passing  in  the  Prophet's  view.  He  sees  the  signals  erected 
— he  hears  a  noise  in  the  mountains — and  regarding  these  as  actually  pre- 
sent, he  exclaims,  her  time  is  near  to  come!  It  may,  however,  mean,  as 
similar  expressions  do  in  other  cases,  that  when  the  appointed  time  should 
come,  the  event  would  certainly  take  place,  there  could  be  no  postpone- 
ment or  delay. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  destruction  of  Babylon  is  again  foretold,  and  more  explicitly  con- 
nected with  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  bondage.  After  a  general  assur- 
ance of  God's  favour  to  his  people,  and  of  an  exchange  of  conditions 
between  them  and  their  oppressors,  they  are  represented  as  joining  in  a  song 
of  triumph  over  their  fallen  enemy.  In  this  song,  which  is  universally 
admitted  to  possess  the  highest  literary  merit,  they  describe  the  earth  as  again 
reposing  from  its  agitation  and  affliction,  and  then  breaking  forth  into  a  shout 
of  exultation,  in  which  the  very  trees  of  the  forest  join,  vs.  1-8.  By  a  still 
bolder  figure,  the  unseen  world  is  represented  as  perturbed  at  the  approach 
of  the  fallen  tyrant,  who  is  met,  as  he  enters,  by  the  kings  already  there, 
amazed  to  find  him  sunk  as  low  as  themselves  and  from  a  still  greater  height 
of  actual  elevation  and  of  impious  pretensions,  which  are  strongly  contrasted 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  267 

with  his  present  condition,  as  deprived  not  only  of  regal  honours  but  of  decent 
burial,  vs.  9-20.     Tin-  threatening  is  then  extended  to  the  whole  and 

the  prophecy  closes  as  before  with  a  prediction  of  the  total  desolation  of 
Babylon,  vs.  21-23. 

Vs.  24-27  are  regarded  by  the  latest  writers  as  a  distinct  prophecy, 
unconnected  with  what  goes  before,  and  misplaced  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  book.  The  reasons  for  believing  that  it  is  rather  an  appendix  or  conclu- 
sion, added  by  the  Prophet  himself,  will  be  fully  stated  in  the  exposition. 

Vs.  28-32  are  regarded  by  a  still  greater  number  of  writers  as  a  distinct 
prophecy  against  Philistia.  The  traditional  arrangement  of  the  text,  how- 
ever, creates  a  strong  presumption  that  this  passage  stands  in  some  close  con- 
nexion with  what  goes  before.  The  true  state  of  the  case  may  be,  that  the 
Prophet,  having  reverted  from  the  downfall  of  Babylon  to  that  of  Assyria, 
now  closes  with  a  warning  apostrophe  to  the  Philistines  who  had  also  suf- 
fered from  the  latter  power,  and  were  disposed  to  exult  unduly  in  its  over- 
throw. If  the  later  application  of  the  name  Philistia  to  the  whole  land  of 
Canaan  could  be  justified  by  Scriptural  usage,  these  verses  might  be  under- 
stood as  a  warning  to  the  Jews  themselves  not  to  exult  too  much  in  their 
escape  from  Assyrian  oppression,  since  they  were  yet  to  be  subjected  to  the 
heavier  yoke  of  Babylonian  bondage.  Either  of  these  suppositions  is  more 
reasonable  than  that  this  passage  is  an  independent  prophecy  subjoined  to 
the  foregoing  one  by  caprice  or  accident. 

V.  1.  This  verse  declares  God's  purpose  in  destroying  the  Babylonian 
power.  For  Jehovah  will  pity  (or  have  mercy  upon)  Jacob,  and  will  again  (or 
still)  choose  Israel  and  cause  them  to  rest  on  their  (own)  land — and  the  stranger 
shall  be  joined  to  them — and  they  (the  strangers)  shall  be  attached  to  the  house 
of  Jacob.  Jacob  and  Israel  are  here  used  for  the  whole  race.  The  plural 
pronoun  them  does  not  refer  to  Jacob  and  Israel  as  the  names  of  different  per- 
sons, but  to  each  of  them  as  a  collective.  For  the  same  reason  ^nsos  is  plural 
though  agreeing  with  "irn.  By  God's  still  choosing  Israel  we  are  to  under- 
stand his  continuing  to  treat  them  as  his  chosen  people.  Or  we  may  render 
Tis  again,  in  which  case  the  idea  will  be,  that  having  for  a  time  or  in 
appearance  cast  them  off  and  given  them  up  to  other  lords,  he  would  now 
take  them  to  himself  again.  Gesenius  gives  two  specimens  in  this  verse  of 
his  disposition  to  attenuate  the  force  of  the  Hebrew  words  by  needlessly 
departing  from  their  primary  import.  Because  *iH3  is  occasionally  used 
where  we  should  simply  speak  of  loving  or  preferring,  and  because  the 
Hiphil  of  rw  to  rest,  is  sometimes  used  to  signify  the  act  of  laying  down  or 
placing,  he  adopts  these  two  jejune  and  secondary  senses  here. — In  this  he 
is  closely  followed  by  DeWette.  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Umbreit,  have 
the  good  taste  to  give  ->na  its  distinctive  sense,  but  Ewald  alone  among 


* 


268  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

the  later  Germans  has  done  full  justice  to  the  meaning  of  both  words,  by 
translating  the  first  choose  and  the  other  give  them  rest.  The  Vulgate  takes 
the  a  after  "ina  as  a  partitive  (eliget  de  Israel),  whereas  it  is  the  usual  con- 
nective particle  between  this  verb  and  its  object.  It  is  allowable,  but  not 
necessary,  to  give  the  Niphals  in  the  second  clause  a  reflexive  meaning,  as 
some  writers  do.  rnbs  is  followed  by  bs  as  in  Numbers  18:2.  Knobel 
understands  by  *iih  the  surviving  Canaanites,  some  of  whom  went  into  cap- 
tivity with  Israel  (Ezek.  14:  7.  47:  22),  and  others  remained  in  possession 
of  the  land  (Ezra  9 :  1  seq.)  But  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  restrict- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  word,  especially  as  a  general  accession  of  the  gentiles 
is  so  often  promised  elsewhere.  According  to  Cocceius  and  Gill,  the  maxim 
of  the  Talmud,  that  proselytes  are  like  a  scab,  is  founded  on  the  affinity  of  the 
verb  nsou  with  the  noun  nnsb. — Umbreit  correctly  understands  this  not  as 
a  mere  promise  of  temporal  deliverance  and  increase  to  Israel  as  a  nation, 
but  as  an  assurance  that  the  preservation  of  the  chosen  people  was  a  neces- 
sary means  for  the  fulfilment  of  God's  purposes  of  mercy  to  mankind  in 
general. — The  literal  fulfilment  of  the  last  clause  in  its  primary  sense  is  clear 
from  such  statements  as  the  one  in  Esther  8:  17. 

V.  2.  And  nations  shall  take  them  and  bring  them  to  their  place — 
and  the  house  of  Israel  shall  take  possession  of  them  on  Jehovah's  land  for 
male  and  female  servants — and  (thus)  they  (the  Israelites)  shall  be  the  cap- 
tors of  their  captors,  and  rule  over  their  oppressors.     The  first  clause  is 
rendered  somewhat  obscure  by  the  reference  of  the  pronoun  them  to  different 
subjects,  first  the  Jews  and  then  the  gentiles.     Umbreit  renders  ta^?  tribes 
(Stamme),  and  seems  to  refer  it  to  the  Jews  themselves,  and  the  first  suffix 
to  the  gentiles,  thereby  making  the  construction  uniform.     The  sense  will 
then  be,  not  that  the  gentiles  shall  bring  the  Jews  home,  but  that  the  Jews 
shall  bring  the  gentiles  with  them.     Most  interpreters,  however,  are   agreed 
that  the  first  clause  relates  to  the  part  taken  by  the  gentiles  in  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Jews. — To  a  Hebrew  reader  the  word  ibnsnn  would  convey  the 
idea,  not  of  bare  possession  merely,  but  of  permanent  possession,  rendered 
perpetual  by  hereditary  succession.     The  word  is  used  in  this  sense,  and 
with  special  reference  to  slaves  or  servants,  in  Lev.  25 :  46. — It  is  curious 
to  observe  the  meanings  put  upon  this  promise  by  the  different  schools  and 
classes  of  interpreters.     Thus  Grotius  understands  it  of  an  influx  of  foreign- 
ers after  Sennacherib's  invasion  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  an  interpretation 
equally  at  variance  with  the   context  and  with  history.     Cocceius,  as  the 
other  pole  or  opposite  extreme,  applies  it  to  the  final  deliverance  of  the 
Christian  Church  from  persecution  in  the  Roman  empire,  and  its  protection 
by  Constantius  and  establishment  by  Constantine.     Clericus  and  others  find 
the  whole  fulfilment  in  the  number  of  foreign   servants  whom  the  Jews 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  269 

brought  back  from  exile  (Kzra  2:  65).  Calvin  and  others  make  the  change 
predicted  altogether  moral,  a  spiritual  conquest  of  the  true  religion  over 
those  who  were  oik c  its  physical  oppressors.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to 
compare  these  lu>t  interpretations  without  feeling  the  necessity  of  some  exe- 
getical  hypothesis  by  which  they  may  be  reconciled.  Some  of  toe  worst 
errors  of  interpretation  have  arisen  from  the  mutual  exclusion  of  hypotheses 
as  incompatible,  which  really  agree,  and  indeed  are  necessary  to  complete 
each  other.  The  simple  meaning  of  this  promise  seems  to  be  that  the 
church  or  chosen  people  and  the  other  nations  should  change  places,  the 
oppressed  becoming  the  oppressor,  and  the  slave  the  master.  This  of  course 
admits  both  an  external  and  internal  fulfilment.  In  a  lower  sense  and  on  a 
smaller  scale  it  was  accomplished  in  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile ; 
but  its  full  accomplishment  is  yet  to  come,  not  with  respect  to  the  Jews  as 
a  people,  for  their  pre-eminence  has  ceased  for  ever,  but  with  respect  to  the 
church,  including  Jews  and  gentiles,  which  has  succeeded  to  the  rights  and 
privileges,  promises  and  actual  possessions,  of  God's  ancient  people.  The 
true  principle  of  exposition  is  adopted  even  by  the  Rabbins.  Jarchi  refers 
the  promise  to  the  future  (TTsb),  to  the  period  of  complete  redemption. 
Kimchi  more  explicitly  declares  that  its  fulfilment  is  to  be  sought  partly  in 
the  restoration  from  Babylon,  and  partly  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah. 

V.  3.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  the  day  of  Jehovah? s  causing 
thee  to  rest  from  thy  toil  (or  suffering),  and  from  thy  commotion  (or  dis- 
quietude), and  from  the  hard  service  which  was  wrought  by  thee  (or  imposed 
upon  thee).  The  precise  construction  of  the  last  words  seems  to  be,  in 
which  (or  with  respect  to  which)  it  was  wrought  with  thee  i.  e.  they  (inde- 
finitely) wrought  with  thee,  or  thou  wast  made  to  work.  The  nominative 
of  -»23>  is  not  tfiS-g  nor  the  relative  referring  to  it,  but  an  indefinite  subject 
understood.  This  impersonal  construction  makes  it  unnecessary  to  account 
for  the  masculine  form  of  the  verb  as  irregular.  Aben  Ezra  refers  ass  and 
iai  to  pain  of  body  and  pain  of  mind,  Cocceius  to  outward  persecutions  and 
internal  divisions  of  the  church.  But  they  are  much  more  probably  equiva- 
lent expressions  for  pain  and  suffering  in  general.  In  this  verse  and  the  follow- 
ing context,  the  Prophet,  in  order  to  reduce  the  general  promise  of  the  fore- 
going verse  to  a  more  graphic  and  impressive  form,  recurs  to  the  downfall  of 
Babylon,  as  the  beginning  of  the  series  of  deliverances  which  he  had  pre- 
dicted, and  describes  the  effect  upon  those  most  concerned,  by  putting  into 
the  mouth  of  Israel  a  song  of  triumph  over  their  oppressor.  This  is  uni- 
versally admitted  to  be  one  of  the  finest  specimens  of  Hebrew  and  indeed  of 
ancient  composition. 

V.  4.  That  thou  shalt  raise  this  song  over  the  king  of  Babylon  and 
say,  How  hath  the  oppressor  ceased,  the  golden  (city)  ceased !    The  Vav  at 


270  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XIV. 

the  beginning  continues  the  construction  from  rnni  in  v.  3,  and  can  only  be 
expressed  in  our  idiom  by  that. — sto:  is  not  merely  to  begin  or  to  utter,  but 
to  raise,  as  this  word  is  employed  by  us  in  a  musical  sense,  including  the 
ideas  of  commencement,  utterance,  and  loudness. — fctja  is  not  so  called  from 
bid  a  to  rule,  but  from  ViJa  to  resemble  or  compare.  Its  most  general  sense 
seems  to  be  that  of  tropical  or  figurative  language.  The  more  specific 
senses  which  have  been  ascribed  to  it  are  for  the  most  part  suggested  by  the 
context.  Here  it  may  have  a  special  reference  to  the  bold  poetical  fiction 
following.  If  so,  it  may  warn  us  not  to  draw  inferences  from  the  passage 
with  respect  to  the  unseen  world  or  the  state  of  departed  spirits.  Calvin's 
description  of  the  opening  sentence  as  sarcastic  has  led  others  to  describe 
the  whole  passage  as  a  satire,  which  is  scarcely  consistent  with  its  peculiar 
merit  as  a  song  of  triumph. — Tpx  is  an  exclamation  of  surprise,  but  at  the  same 
time  has  its  proper  force  as  an  interrogative  adverb,  as  appears  from  the 
answer  in  the  following  verse. — tow  is  properly  a  task-master,  slave-driver, 
or  tax-gatherer.  n^rna  is  derived  by  the  Rabbins  and  many  modern 
writers  from  sri1?,  the  Chaldee  form  of  s^t  gold,  in  which  Junius  sees  a 
sarcasm  on  the  Babylonians,  and  Gesenius  an  indication  that  the  writer 
lived  in  Babylonia !  According  to  this  etymology,  the  word  has  been 
explained  by  Vitringa  as  meaning  a  golden  sceptre — by  others  the  golden 
city — the  place  or  repository  of  gold — the  exactress  of  gold,  taking  the 
word  as  a  participial  noun — the  exaction  of  gold,  taking  it  as  an  abstract  — 
or  gold  itself,  considered  as  a  tribute.  From  dubious  Arabic  analogies, 
Schultens  and  others  have  explained  it  to  mean  the  destroyer  or  the  plun- 
derer. J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans  are  disposed  to  read  nnma 
oppression,  which  is  found  in  one  edition,  appears  to  be  the  basis  of  the 
ancient  versions,  and  .agrees  well  with  the  use  of  toab  and  fcflw  in  cb.  3 :  5. 
Ewald  gives  it  the  strong  sense  of  tyrannical  rage. — The  meaning  of  the 
first  clause  is  of  course  that  Israel  would  have  occasion  to  express  such  feel- 
ings. There  is  consequently  no  need  of  disputing  when  or  where  the  song 
was  to  be  sung.  Equally  useless  is  the  question  whether  by  the  king  of 
Babylon  we  are  to  understand  Nebuchadnezzar,  Evilmerodach,  or  Belshaz- 
zar.  The  king  here  introduced  is  an  ideal  personage,  whose  downfall  repre- 
sents that  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy. 

V.  5.  This  verse  contains  the  answer  to  the  question  in  the  one  before 
it.  Jehovah  hath  broken  the  staff  of  the  wicked,  the  rod  of  the  rulers.  The 
meaning  tyrants,  given  to  the  last  word  by  Gesenius  and  the  later  Germans, 
is  implied  but  not  expressed.  The  rod  and  staff  are  common  figures  for 
dominion,  and  their  being  broken  for  its  destruction.  There  is  no  need  of 
supposing  a  specific  reference  either  to  the  rod  of  a  task-master,  with  Gese- 
nius, or  to  the  sceptre  of  a  king,  with  Ewald  and  the  older  writers. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  271 

V.  6.  Smiting  nations  in  anger  by  a  stroke  without  cessation — //// 
nations  in  math  by  a  rub  without  restraint — literally,  which  he  (or  one 
indefinitely)  did  not  restrain. — The  participles  may  agree  grammatically 
either  with  the  rod  or  with  the  kin<j  who  wields  it.  Junius  and  Tremellius 
suppose  the  punishment  of  the  Babylonians  to  be  mentioned  in  both  clauses. 
*  As  for  him  who  smote  the  nations  in  w  rath,  his  stroke  shall  not  be  removed 
— he  that  ruled  the  nations  in  anger  is  persecuted  and  cannot  hinder  it.' 
The  English  Version,  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  others,  apply  the  last  clause  only 
to  the  punishment.  But  the  great  majority  both  of  the  oldest  and  the  latest 
writers  make  the  whole  descriptive  of  the  Babylonian  tyranny.  Kimchi, 
Calvin,  and  Vatablus,  read  the  last  clause  thus — (if  any  one  was)  perse- 
cuted, he  did  not  hinder  it.  Dathe  reads  q"na  as  an  active  participle 
(q^n^),  and  this  reading  sdims  to  be  likewise  supposed  in  the  Chaldee, 
Syriac,  and  Latin  versions.  Some  make  Bfifjn  a  verbal  noun,  meaning 
persecution,  though  the  passive  form  is  singular,  and  scarcely  accounted  for 
by  Henderson's  suggestion,  that  it  means  persecution  as  experienced  rather 
than  as  practised.  All  the  recent  German  writers  have  adopted  Doederlein's 
proposal  to  amend  the  text  by  changing  qma  into  rma,  a  construct  form 
like  ns»,  and  derived  like  it  from  the  immediately  preceding  verb.  Striking 
a  stroke  without  cessation,  swaying  a  sway  without  restraint,  will  then  cor- 
respond exactly,  as  also  the  remaining  phrases,  peoples  and  nations,  wrath 
and  anger.  Of  all  the  emendations  founded  on  the  principle  of  parallelism, 
there  is  none  more  natural  or  plausible  than  this,  the  rather  as  the  letters 
interchanged  are  much  alike,  especially  in  some  kinds  of  Hebrew  writing, 
and  as  the  sense  is  very  little  affected  by  a  change  of  persecution  into  domi- 
nation. Henderson,  however,  though  he  admits  the  plausibility,  denies 
the  necessity  of  this  emendation.  It  may  also  be  observed  that  a?  general 
application  of  this  principle  of  criticism  would  make  extensive  changes 
in  the  text.  For  although  there  may  be  no  case  quite  so  strong  as  this0 
there  are  doubtless  many  where  a  slight  change  would  produce  entire 
uniformity.  And  yet  the  point  in  which  the  parallelism  fails  may  sometimes 
be  the  very  one  designed  to  be  the  salient  or  emphatic  point  of  the  whole 
sentence.  Such  emendations  should  be  therefore  viewed  with  caution  and 
suspicion,  unless  founded  on  external  evidence,  or  but  slightly  affecting  the 
meaning  of  the  passage,  as  in  the  case  before  us.  Umbreit,  who  adopts 
Doederlein's  suggestion,  gives  to  mi  and  rvrra  what  is  supposed  to  be 
their  primary  sense,  that  of  treading  or  trampling  under  foot. — Cocceius, 
who  applies  this  to  the  tyranny  of  Antichrist,  explains  me  TO^S  as  a  com- 
pound noun  (like  f?nib  ch.  10  :  15)  meaning  non-apostasy,  and  having  refer- 
ence to  the  persecution  of  true  Christians  on  the  false  pretence  of  heresy, 
schism,  or  apostasy.  By  the  side  of  this  may  be  placed  AbarbenePs  inter- 
pretation of  the  whole  verse  as  relating  to  God  himself. 


^2  ISAIAH,   CHAP.   XIV. 

V.  7.  At  rest,  quiet,  is  the  whole  earth.  They  burst  forth  into  singing 
(or  a  shout  of  joy).  Jarchi  seems  to  make  the  first  clause  the  words  of  the 
song  or  shout  mentioned  in  the  second.  There  is  no  inconsistency  between 
the  clauses,  as  the  first  is  not  descriptive  of  silence,  but  of  tranquillity  and 
rest.  The  land  had  rest  is  a  phrase  employed  in  the  book  of  Judges  (e.  g. 
ch.  5:  31)  to  describe  the  condition  of  the  country  after  a  great  national 
deliverance. — There  is  no  need  of  supposing  an  ellipsis  of  rpnui^,  to  agree 
with  the  plural  wss,  as  Henderson  does,  since  it  may  just  as  well  be  con- 
strued with  f  ^n  as  a  collective,  or  indefinitely,  they  (i.  e.  men  in  general) 
break  forth  into  singing.  Ewald,  who  gives  the  whole  of  this  b'&a  in  a 
species  of  blank  verse,  is  particularly  happy  in  his  version  of  this  sentence. 
{Nun  ruht,  nun  rastet  die  ganze  Erde,  man  bricht  in  Jubel  aus.)  The  verb 
to  burst  is  peculiarly  descriptive  of  an  ebullition  of  joy  long  suppressed  or 
suddenly  succeeding  grief.  Rosenmuller  quotes  a  fine  parallel  from  Terence. 
Jamne  erumpere  hoc  licet  mihi  gaudium  ?  The  Hebrew  phrase  is  beauti- 
fully rendered  by  the  Septuagint,  §oa  fisz  evcppoovvyg.  It  is  a  curious  illus- 
tration of  the  worth  of  certain  arguments,  that  while  Gesenius  makes  the 
use  of  this  phrase  a  proof  that  this  prediction  was  not  written  by  Isaiah, 
Henderson  with  equal  right  adduces  it  to  prove  that  he  was  the  author  of 
the  later  chapters,  in  which  the  same  expression  frequently  occurs. 

V.  8.  Not  only  the  earth  and  its  inhabitants  take  part  in  this  triumphant 
song  or  shout,  but  the  trees  of  the  forest.  Also  (or  even)  the  cypresses 
rejoice  with  respect  to  thee — the  cedars  of  Lebanon — (saying)  now  that  thou 
art  fallen  (literally  lain  down),  the  feller  (or  woodman,  literally  the  cutter) 
shall  not  come  up  against  us.  Now  that  we  are  safe  from  thee,  we  fear  no 
other  enemy.  The  iBra  has  been  variously  explained  to  be  the  fir,  the  ash, 
and  the  pine ;  but  the  latest  authorities  decide  that  it  denotes  a  species  of 
cypress.  According  to  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Antilibanus  is  clothed  with  firs, 
as  Libanus  or  Lebanon  proper  is  with  cedars,  and  both  are  here  introduced 
as  joining  in  the  general  triumph.  Vitringa  makes  W^j  a  noun  with  a 
suffix,  meaning  our  leaves  or  our  tops  (cacumina  nostra).  Among  other 
reasons,  he  alleges  that  Wji  is  not  construed  with  feg  elsewhere.  But  the 
accents  might  have  taught  him  that  WJJflj  is  dependent  on  rt*>*£j  and  that 
rvn'Sii  is  to  be  construed  as  a  noun.  Forerius  reads  on  us,  and  supposes  an 
allusion  to  the  climbing  of  the  tree  by  the  woodman,  in  order  to  cut  off  the 
upper  branches.  Knobel  refers  the  words  in  the  same  sense  to  the  falling 
of  the  stroke  upon  the  trees.  ,  It  is  much  more  natural,  however,  to  regard 
the  words  as  meaning  simply  to  us,  or  more  emphatically  against  us.  The 
preposition  in  *$,  here  as  elsewhere,  strictly  denotes  general  relation,  as  to, 
with  respect  to.  The  specific  sense  of  over  or  against,  in  all  the  cases 
which  Gesenius  cites,  is  gathered  from  the  context.     Instead  of  liest  Pag- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  273 

oinua  has  ileepett,  which  might  be  metaphorically  applied  to  death,  but  is  not 

n  ally  the  meaning  of  the  word,  which  denotes  a  sleeping  posture  but  not 
sleep  itself.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  figures  in  this  verse,  there  are  three 
distinct  opinions.  The  first  is  that  the  trees  are  emblems  of  kings  and  other 
great  men.  This  is  the  explanation  given  in  the  Targum,  and  by  Cocceius, 
Vitringa,  and  other  interpreters  of  that  school.  The  second  opinion  is  that 
the  trees,  as  such,  are  introduced  rejoicing  that  they  shall  no  more  be  cut 
down  to  open  roads  or  to  supply  materials  for  barricades  or  forts  or  for 
luxurious  buildings.  This  prosaic  exposition,  proposed  by  Aben  Ezra  and 
approved  by  Grotius,  is  a  favourite  with  some  of  the  writers  at  the  present  day 
who  clamour  loudest  about  Hebrew  poetry,  and  insist  most  rigorously  on  the 
application  of  the  so-called  laws  of  versification.  The  third  opinion,  and 
the  only  one  that  seems  consistent  with  a  pure  taste,  is  the  one  proposed  by 
Calvin,  who  supposes  this  to  be  merely  a  part  of  one  great  picture,  repre- 
senting universal  nature  as  rejoicing.  The  symbolical  and  mechanical  inter- 
pretations are  as  much  out  of  place  here,  as  they  would  be  in  a  thousand 
splendid  passages  of  classical  and  modern  poetry,  where  no  one  yet  has  ever 
dreamed  of  applying  them.  Both  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  sacred  books, 
inanimate  nature  is  personified,  and  speaks  herself  instead  of  being  merely 
spoken  of. 

Ipsi  laetitia  voces  ad  siclera  jactant 
Intonsi  montes  ;  ipsae  jam  carmina  rapes, 
Ipsa  sonant  arbusla. 

The  Septuagint  version  of  n\>3£  as  a  preterite  (avtfirj),  which  is  followed 
by  all  the  early  writers,  is  not  only  arbitrary  and  in  violation  of  the  usus 
loquendi,  but  also  objectionable  on  the  ground  that  it  implies  too  long  an 
interval  between  the  utterance  of  the  words  and  the  catastrophe  which  called 
them  forth.  The  trees  are  not  to  be  considered  as  historically  stating  what 
has  happened  or  not  happened  since  a  certain  time,  but  as  expressing,  at 
the  very  moment  of  the  tyrant's  downfall,  or  at  least  soon  after  it,  a  confi- 
dent assurance  of  their  future  safety.  In  such  a  connexion  txn  corresponds 
exactly  to  the  English  now  thai.  The  present  form  given  to  both  verbs 
(now  that  thou  liest,  no  one  comes  etc.)  by  Luther  and  most  of  the  later 
Germans,  approaches  nearer  to  the  true  construction,  but  is  neither  so 
exact  nor  so  poetical  as  the  literal  translation  of  the  future  given  by  Rosen- 
muller  and  Ewald,  and  before  them  by  the  Vulgate  (non  ascendet  qui  suc- 
cidat  nos).  It  is  characteristic  of  Cocceius  and  his  whole  scheme,  that 
he  makes  the  firs  and  cedars  mean  not  only  great  men  in  general,  but 
ecclesiastical  rulers  in  particular,  and  in  his  exposition  of  the  verse  refers 
expressly  to  the  English  bishops  who  became  reformers,  and  to  the  case  of 
the  Venetians  when  subjected  to  a  papal  interdict  in  1606.     Such  exposi- 

18 


274  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

tions  have  been  well  described  by  Stuart  (Apocal.  II.  p.  147)  as  attempts 
to  convert  prophecy  into  a  syllabus  of  civil  and  church  history. 

V.  9.  The  bold  personification  is  now  extended  from  the  earth  and  its 
forests  to  the  invisible  or  lower  world,  the  inhabitants  of  which  are  repre- 
sented as  aroused  at  the  approach  of  the  new  victim  and  as  coming  forth  to 
meet  him.  Hell  from  beneath  is  moved  (or  in  commotion)  for  thee  (i.  e.  on 
account  of  thee)  to  meet  thee  (at)  thy  coming — it  rouses  for  thee  the  giants 
(the  gigantic  shades  or  spectres),  all  the  chief  ones  (literally  he-goats)  of 
the  earth — it  raises  from  their  thrones  all  the  kings  of  the  nations. — bixd 
has  already  been  explained  (vide  supra,  ch.  5 :  14)  as  meaning  first  a  grave 
or  individual  sepulchre,  and  then  the  grave  as  a  general  receptacle,  indis- 
criminately occupied  by  all  the  dead  without  respect  to  character,  as  when 
we  say,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  the  evil  and  the  good,  lie  together  in  the 
grave,  not  in  a  single  tomb,  which  would  be  false,  but  under  ground  and  in 
a  common  state  of  death  and  burial.  The  English  word  Hell,  though  now 
appropriated  to  the  condition  or  the  place  of  future  torments,  corresponds, 
in  etymology  and  early  usage,  to  the  Hebrew  word  in  question.  Gesenius 
derives  it,  with  the  German  Hblle,  from  Hohle  hollow,  but  the  English 
etymologists  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  helan  to  cover,  which  amounts  to  the 
same  thing,  the  ideas  of  a  hollow  and  a  covered  place  being  equally  appro- 
priate. The  modern  English  versions  have  discarded  the  word  hell  as  an 
equivocal  expression,  requiring  explanation  in  order  to  be  rightly  understood. 
But  as  the  Hebrew  word  Sheol,  retained  by  Henderson,  and  the  Greek 
word  Hades,  introduced  by  Lowth  and  Barnes,  require  explanation  also, 
the  strong  and  homely  Saxon  form  will  be  preferred  by  every  unsophisti- 
cated taste,  not  only  to  these  Greek  and  Hebrew  names,  but  also  to  the 
periphrases  of  Gesenius  (Schattenreich)  and  Hendewerk  (Todtenreich), 
and  even  to  the  simpler  and  more  poetical  expression  (Unterwelt)  employed 
by  Hitzig  and  DeWette.  Ewald  and  Umbreit  have  the  good  taste  to 
restore  the  old  word  Holle  in  their  versions. — Two  expressions  have  been 
faithfully  transcribed  by  interpreters  from  one  another,  in  relation  to  this 
passage,  with  a  very  equivocal  effect  upon  its  exposition.  The  one  is  that 
it  is  full  of  biting  sarcasm,  an  unfortunate  suggestion  of  Calvin's,  which 
puts  the  reader  on  the  scent  for  irony  and  even  wit,  instead  of  opening  his 
mind  to  impressions  of  sublimity  and  tragic  grandeur.  The  other,  for  which 
Calvin  is  in  no  degree  responsible,  is  that  we  have  before  us  not  a  mere 
prosopopoeia  or  poetical  creation  of  the  highest  order,  but  a  chapter  from  the 
popular  belief  of  the  Jews,  as  to  the  locality,  contents,  and  transactions  of 
the  unseen  world.  Thus  Gesenius,  in  his  Lexicon  and  Commentary,  gives 
a  minute  topographical  description  of  Sheol,  as  the  Hebrews  believed  it  to 
exist.     With  equal  truth  a  diligent  compiler  might  construct  a  map  of  hell, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  275 

as  conceived  of  by  the  English  Puritans,  from  the  descriptive  portions  of 
the  Paradise  Lost.  The  infidel  interpreters  of  Germany  regard  the  Scriptural 
and  classical  mythology  precisely  in  the  same  light.  But  when  Christian 
writers  copy  their  expressions  or  ideas,  they  should  take  pains  to  explain 
whether  the  popular  belief,  of  which  they  speak,  was  true  or  false,  and  if 
false,  how  it  could  be  countenanced  and  sanctioned  by  inspired  writers. 
This  kind  of  exposition  is  moreover  chargeable  with  a  rhetorical  incongruity 
in  lauding  the  creative  genius  of  the  poet,  and  yet  making  all  his  grand 
creations  commonplace  articles  of  popular  belief.  The  true  view  of  the 
matter,  as  determined  both  by  piety  and  taste,  appears  to  be,  that  the  pas- 
sage now  before  us  comprehends  two  elements  and  only  two,  religious 
verities  or  certain  facts,  and  poetical  embellishments.  It  may  not  be  easy 
to  distinguish  clearly  between  these  ;  but  it  is  only  between  these  that  we 
are  able  or  have  any  occasion  to  distinguish.  The  admission  of  a  tertium 
quid,  in  the  shape  of  superstitious  fables,  is  as  false  in  rhetoric  as  in  theology. 
— Gesenius,  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his  Lexicon,  and  in  his  Commentary  on 
Isaiah,  derives  o^nb")  from  MBn  to  be  weak,  and  makes  it  a  poetical  descrip- 
tion of  the  manes,  shades,  or  phantoms  of  the  unseen  world.  In  the  last 
edition  of  his  Lexicon,  he  derives  it  from  kb~i  to  be  still  or  quiet,  a  supposi- 
titious meaning  founded  on  an  Arabic  analogy.  By  this  new  derivation  he 
destroys  the  force  of  the  argument  derived  from  the  expression  in  the  next 
verse,  '  thou  art  become  weak  (n^n)  as  we,'  to  which  it  may  also  be 
objected  that  if  th^  author  designed  any  such  allusion  he  would  probably 
have  used  the  word  ms*!  from  nsi.  The  ancient  versions  and  all  the  early 
writers  understand  it  to  mean  giants,  to  avoid  which  Gesenius  makes  tiftun 
in  the  prose  books  a  mere  proper  name  derived  from  xbi  or  ttin  the  ances- 
tor. But  this  last  always  has  the  article,  and  no  exegetical  tradition  is  more 
uniform  than  that  which  gives  to  Rephaim  the  sense  of  giants.  Its  appli- 
cation to  the  dead  admits  of  several  explanations,  equally  plausible  with 
that  of  Gesenius,  and  entitled  to  the  preference  according  to  the  modern 
laws  of  lexicography,  because  instead  of  multiplying  they  reduce  the  num- 
ber of  distinct  significations.  Thus  the  shades  or  spectres  of  the  dead  might 
naturally  be  conceived  as  actually  larger  than  the  living  man,  since  that  which 
is  shadowy  and  indistinct  is  commonly  exaggerated  by  the  fancy.  Or  there 
may  be  an  allusion  to  the  Canaan itish  giants  who  were  exterminated  by 
divine  command  and  might  well  be  chosen  to  represent  the  whole  class  of 
departed  sinners.  Or  in  this  particular  case,  we  may  suppose  the  kings 
and  great  ones  of  the  earth  to  be  distinguished  from  the  vulgar  dead  as 
giants  or  gigantic  forms.  Either  of  these  hypotheses  precludes  the  necessitv 
of  finding  a  new  root  for  a  common  word,  or  of  denying  its  plain  usage  else- 
where. As  to  mere  poetical  effect,  so  often  made  a  test  of  truth,  there  can 
be  no  comparison  between  the  description  of  the  dead  as  weak  or  quiet  ones. 


276  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

and  the  sublime  conception  of  gigantic  shades  or  phantoms. — Aben  Ezra 
and  Kimchi  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Wfctf,  in  this  one  verse  is  construed 
both  with  a  masculine  and  feminine  verb.     Hitzig   explains   this   on  the 
ground   that  in   the  first   clause    Sheol  is  passive,  in    the  second  active  ; 
Maurer  with  more  success  upon  the  ground  that  the  nearest  verb  takes  the 
feminine  or  proper  gender  of  the  noun,  while  the  more  remote  one,  by  a 
common   license,   retains   the  masculine   or  radical   form,  as  in  ch.  33  :  9. 
(See  Gesenius  <§>  141.  Rem.  1.)    Another  method  of  removing  the  anomaly- 
is  afforded  by  an  ingenious  conjecture  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  detaches  -5*03 
from  what  precedes  and  makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb  vns.    Thy  coming 
rouses  the  gigantic  shades.     This  is  also  recommended  by  its  doing  away  with 
the  somewhat  harsh  construction  of  "sin  adverbially  after  T**ftp£.    There  is 
nothing  indeed  to  hinder  the  adoption  of  this  simple  change,  but  the  general 
expediency  of  adhering  to  the  Masoretic  interpunction  wherever  it  is  possi- 
ble.    Some  of  the  older  writers  refer  *v«P  to  the  King  of  Hell,  the  objection 
to  which  is  not  its  inconsistency  with  Hebrew  mythology,  but  its  being 
wholly  arbitrary. — Because  RRQt)  is  sometimes  simply  equivalent  to  nnn, 
Gesenius  here  prefers  this    secondary    and    diluted    meaning  to   the    one 
which  he  himself  gives  as  the  primary  and  proper  one,  and  which  is  really 
demanded  by  the  figure  of  Hell's  being  roused  and  coming  forth  (or  as  it 
were,  coming  up)  to  meet  him.     The  appropriateness  of  the  strict  sense 
here  is  recognized  by  Knobel,  who  renders  it  '  von  unten  her,  namlich  ent- 
gegen  dem  von  oben  kommenden  Chaldaer-konige.' — K^ngs  are  poetically 
called  tnfffi*  as  the  leaders  of  the  flocks.     J.  D.  Michaelis  adopts  another 
reading,  on  the  ground  that  his  readers  might  have  laughed  at  the  idea  of 
he-goats  rising  from  their  thrones.     But  as  this  combination  is  at  variance 
with  the  accents,  the  laugh  might  have  been  at  the  translator's  own  expense. 
Hitzig  indeed  proposes  to  change  the  interpunction,  but  he  translates  tt+W!$ 
the  mighty  ones  (Machtigen). — According  to  Clericus,  the  dead  kings  are 
here  represented  as  arising  from  their  ordinary  state  of  profound  repose  upon 
their  subterranean  thrones,  a  supposition  not  required  by  the  terms  of  the 
description,  though  it  adds  to  its  poetical  effect.     The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  opinion,  that  the  kings  here  meant  are  specifically  those  whom  the  king 
of  Babylon  had  conquered  or  oppressed.     Kimchi  seems  to  think  that  they 
are  first  represented   as  alarmed  at  the  approach  of  their  old  enemy,  but 
afterwards  surprised  to  find  him  like  themselves.     Sit^  however  does  not 
necessarily  imply  fear,  but  denotes  agitation  or  excitement  from  whatever 
cause. — Cocceius  of  course  finds  a  reference  in  this  clause  to  the  history  of 
the  Reformation. 

V.  10.  All  of  them  shall  answer  and  say  to  thee — thou  also  art  made 
weak  as  we — to  us  art  likened !     Calvin  persists  in  saying  haec  sunt  ludi- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  277 

bria,  and  his  successors  in  discovering  severe  taunts,  bitter  irony,  and  biting 
sarcasm,  in  this  natural  expression  of  surprise  that  one  so  far  superior  to 
themselves  should  now  be  a  partaker  of  their  weakness  and  disgrace.  The 
idiomatic  use  of  answer,  both  in  Hebrew  and  in  Greek,  in  reference  even  to 
the  person  speaking  first,  is  so  familiar  that  there  can  be  no  need  of  diluting 
it  to  say  with  Calvin  (loquentur),  or  transforming  it  into  accost  with  Lowth 
and  Barnes,  or  commence  with  Henderson  and  the  modern  Germans.  Nor 
is  it  necessary  to  suppose,  with  CEcolampadius,  that  they  answer  his 
thoughts  and  expectations  of  welcome  with  a  taunting  speech.  Luther 
seems  to  adopt  the  old  interpretation  of  responsive  or  alternate  speech 
(um  einander  reden).  Gesenius  makes  answer  a  secondary  sense,  but 
a  different  deduction  is  proposed  by  Winer,  who  makes  reference  to 
another  person  an  essential  part  of  the  meaning.  Pagninus  translates  it 
here  vociferabuntur. — The  interrogative  form  given  to  the  last  clause  by 
Calvin  and  all  the  English  versions  is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  much  less 
expressive  than  the  simple  assertion  or  exclamation  preferred  by  the  oldest 
and  latest  writers.  Augusti  supposes  the  words  of  the  D^xsn  to  extend  through 
v.  11,  Rosenmuller  through  v.  13,  and  some  have  even  carried  it  through 
v.  20  ;  but  Vitringa,  Lowth,  Gesenius,  and  the  later  writers,  more  correctly 
restrict  it  to  the  verse  before  us,  partly  because  such  brevity  is  natural  and 
appropriate  to  the  case  supposed,  partly  because  the  termination  is  other- 
wise not  easily  defined.  It  is  perfectly  conceivable,  however,  that  in  such 
a  piece  of  composition,  the  words  of  the  chief  speaker  and  of  others  whom 
he  introduces,  might  insensibly  run  into  one  another  without  altering  the 
sense. — As  bwmz  does  not  elsewhere  take  ba  after  it,  Knobel  supposes  a 
constructio  praegnans  (Gesen.  <§>  138),  '  thou  art  made  like  and  actually 
brought  to  us,'  but  this  supposition  is  entirely  gratuitous. 

V.  11.  Down  to  the  grave  is  brought  thy  pride  (or  pomp) — the  music 
of  thy  harps — under  thee  is  spread  the  ivorm — thy  covering  is  vermin. 
That  fc'WB  is  here  used  in  its  primary  sense  of  grave,  is  clear  from  the  second 
clause,  fWd,  like  the  English  pride,  may  either  signify  an  affection  of  the 
mind  or  its  external  object.  The  size  and  shape  of  the  c"b-a  are  of  no 
exegetical  importance  here,  as  the  word  is  evidently  put  for  musical  instru- 
ments or  music  in  general,  and  this  for  mirth  and  revelry.  (Vide  supra, 
ch.  5:  12.)  Both  the  nouns  in  the  last  clause  are  feminine,  while  the  verb 
and  participle  are  both  masculine.  This  has  led  the  latest  writers  to  explain 
-pos^  as  a  noun.  Lowth  reads  yzz-z  in  the  singular,  on  the  authority  of 
several  manuscripts,  versions  and  editions.  According  to  Gesenius  and  the 
later  Germans,  -pos^  is  itself  a  singular  form  peculiar  to  the  derivatives  of 
rib  roots.  (See  his  Heb.  Gr.  »§>  90.)  But  even  if  it  be  a  plural,  coverings 
may  as  well  be  said  as  clothes.     Luther  makes   ssi   also  a  noun  meaning 


378  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XIV. 

bed.  DeWette  makes  it  an  impersonal  verb  ;  a  bed  is  made  under  thee 
with  vermin  (gebettet  ist  unter  dir  mit  Gewiirm).  Gesenius  treats  it  as  a 
mere  anomaly  or  idiomatic  license  of  construction.  (See  his  Heb.  Gr.  <§>  144. 
a.)  Kimchi's  explanation  is  that  collective  nouns  admit  both  of  a  mascu- 
line and  feminine  construction.  Junius  and  others  suppose  an  allusion  to 
the  practice  of  embalming ;  but  the  words  seem  naturally  only  to  suggest 
the  common  end  of  all  mankind,  even  the  greatest  not  excepted.  The 
imagery  of  the  clause  is  vividly  exhibited  in  Gill's  homely  paraphrase — 
c  nothing  but  worms  over  him  and  worms  under  him,  worms  his  bed  and 
worms  his  bed-clothes ' — or  as  Ewald  expresses  it,  with  a  curious  allusion 
to  the  domestic  usages  of  Germany,  '  worms,  instead  of  silk,  become  his 
under  and  his  upper  bed.' — The  expression  is  not  strengthened  but  weak- 
ened by  Lowth's  interrogations,  which  are  besides  entirely  arbitrary.  As 
the  Hebrew  language  has  a  form  to  express  interrogation,  it  is  not  to  be 
assumed  in  the  absence  of  this  form  without  necessity. 

V.  12.  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  Lucifer,  son  of  the  morning 
— felled  to  the  ground,  thou  that  didst  lord  it  over  the  nations.  In  the  two 
other  places  where  Wnri  occurs  (Ezek.  21  :  17.  11:  2),  it  is  an  impera- 
tive signifying  howl.  This  sense  is  also  put  upon  it  here  by  the  Peshito, 
Aquila,  Jerome  in  his  commentary,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  c  Howl  son  of 
the  morning  for  thy  fall.'  Von  Colin  makes  the  clause  a  parenthetical 
apostrophe — '  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  oh  king — howl  son  of  the 
morning  for  his  fall !  The  first  construction  mentioned  was  originally  given 
by  Rosenmuller  and  Gesenius,  both  of  whom  afterwards  adopted  an- 
other, found  in  all  the  ancient  versions  but  the  Syriac,  in  all  the  leading 
Rabbins,  and  in  most  of  the  early  Christian  writers.  This  interpretation 
makes  the  word  a  derivative  of  V&n  to  shine,  denoting  bright  one,  or  more 
specifically  bright  star,  or  according  to  the  ancients  more  specifically  still  the 
morning  star  or  harbinger  of  daylight,  called  in  Greek  icoacpopog  and  in 
Latin  lucifer.  The  same  derivation  and  interpretation  is  adopted  by  the 
latest  German  writers,  except  that  they  read  W^rt  to  avoid  the  objection, 
that  there  is  no  such  form  of  Hebrew  nouns  as  bbhfi,  and  that  where  this 
form  does  occur,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  confessedly  a  verb.  Tertullian  and 
other  Fathers,  Gregory  the  Great,  and  the  scholastic  commentators,  regard- 
ing Luke  10:  18  as  an  explanation  of  this  verse,  apply  it  to  the  fall  of 
Satan,  from  which  has  arisen  the  popular  perversion  of  the  beautiful  name 
Lucifer  to  signify  the  Devil.  Erroneous  as  this  exposition  is,  it  scarcely 
deserves  the  severe  reprehension  which  some  later  commentators  give  it  who 
receive  with  great  indulgence  exegetical  hypotheses  much  more  absurd. 
In  the  last  clause  Knobel  makes  the  Prophet  represent  the  morning  star  as 
cut  out  from  the  solid  vault  of  heaven,  a  convincing  proof,  of  course,  that 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  279 

the  sacred  writers  entertained  absurd  ideas  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  All 
other  writers  seem  agreed  that  in  the  last  clause  the  figure  of  a  prostrate  tree 
succeeds  that  of  a  fallen  star.  Clericus,  Vitringa,  and  several  other  Latin 
writers,  introduce  another  verb  between  rs^M  and  "pxb  (excisus  dejectus  in 
terram)  on  the  ground  that  these  do  not  cohere.  In  our  idiom,  however, 
there  is  no  need  of  supplying  any  thing,  to  fell  or  cut  down  to  the  ground 
being  equally  good  Hebrew  and  English.  Junius  and  Tremellius  give  to 
tibin  a  passive  or  neuter  sense,  as  in  Job  14 :  10,  and  make  the  clause  com- 
parative— weakened  above  (i.  e.  more  than)  the  nations.  It  is  commonly 
explained,  however,  as  a  description  of  the  Babylonian  tyranny.  Hitzig 
and  Hendewerk  understand  the  image  to  be  that  of  a  tree  overspreading 
other  nations,  as  in  Ezekiel  31  :  6,  17.  Gesenius  and  Umbreit,  with  the 
older  writers,  give  irbn  the  sense  of  weakening,  subduing,  or  discomfiting,  as 
in  Ex.  17  :  13.  The  bs  is  then  a  mere  connective  like  the  English  prepo- 
sition in  the  phrase  to  triumph  over  or  to  lord  it  over.  Cocceius  regards  it 
as  an  elliptical  expression  for  bs  iw's — oppressing  those  who  were  over  the 
nations — and  applies  it  to  the  tyranny  of  the  papal  see  over  the  monarchies 
of  Europe,  after  specifying  some  of  which  he  adds  with  great  naivete,  Ion- 
gum  esset  in  omnia  ire.  Vitringa  adopts  the  same  construction  of  bs  ttfcn 
but  applies  the  verse  to  the  literal  king  of  Babylon.  J.  H.  Michaelis  takes 
©Vin  as  a  noun  (debilitator)  which  removes  the  difficulty  as  to  the  construc- 
tion. The  Peshito  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  give  to  \rbn  the  unauthorized  sense 
of  despising,  looking  down  upon.  Calvin  adopts  an  ancient  Jewish  opinion 
that  it  means  casting  lots  upon  the  nations,  as  to  the  time  or  order  of  attack, 
or  as  to  the  treatment  of  the  conquered. 

V.  13.  His  fall  is  aggravated  by  the  impious  extravagance  of  his  pre- 
tensions. And  (yet)  thou  hadst  said  in  thy  heart  (or  to  thyself) — the 
heavens  will  I  mount  (or  scale)— above  the  stars  of  God  will  I  raise  my 
throne — and  I  ivill  sit  in  the  mount  of  meeting  (or  assembly) — in  the  sides 
of  the  north.  It  is  universally  agreed  that  he  is  here  described  as  aiming 
at  equality  with  God  himself.  Grotius  understands  by  heaven  the  land  of 
Judah,  and  by  stars  the  doctors  of  the  law.  Vitringa  explains  heaven  to 
be  the  sanctuary,  and  stars  the  priests.  Cocceius  applies  the  whole  verse 
to  the  usurpations  of  the  Roman  See.  But  most  interpreters  receive  the  first 
clause  in  its  natural  meaning.  As  to  the  other,  there  are  two  distinct  inter- 
pretations, one  held  by  the  early  writers,  the  other  by  the  moderns  since 
John  David  Michaelis.  According  to  the  first,  iris-nr;  is  analogous  to 
isirrbna,  and  denotes  the  mountain  where  God  agreed  to  meet  the  people, 
to  commune  with  them,  and  to  make  himself  known  to  them  (Ex.  25 :  22. 
29:  42,  43).  Calvin  indeed  gives  to  iqrha  the  sense  of  testimony  or  cove- 
Jiant,  but  does  not  differ  from  the  rest  as  to  the  application  of  the  phrase. 


280  ISAIAH.   CHAP.  XIV. 

All  the  interpreters,  who  are  now  referred  to,  understand  by  lJBNo*Ui  Mount 
Zion  or  Mount  Moriah.  Those  who  adopt  the  former  explanation  are 
under  the  necessity  of  explaining  sides  of  the  north  by  the  assumption  that 
Zion  lay  upon  the  north  side  of  Jerusalem,  which  is  expressly  taught  by 
Kimchi  (©idT  \)tih  \vi  '3)?  Grotius,  Junius,  Clericus,  and  Lightfoot. 
Others,  admitting  the  notorious  fact  that  Zion  was  on  the  south  side  of  the 
city,  suppose  the  mountain  meant  to  be  Moriah,  lying  on  the  north  side  of 
Zion.  So  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Gataker,  and  others.  On  the  same  hypo- 
thesis, both  Zion  and  Moriah  might  have  been  included,  one  as  the  mount 
of  congregation  and  the  other  as  the  sides  of  the  north,  in  reference  to  the 
tabernacle  and  temple,  as  the  places  where  God's  presence  was  successively 
revealed.  According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  it  describes  the  king  of 
Babylon  as  insulting  God  by  threatening  to  erect  his  throne  upon  those 
consecrated  hills,  or  even  affecting  to  be  God,  like  Antichrist,  of  whom  Paul 
says,  with  obvious  allusion  to  this  passage,  that  he  opposeth  and  exalteth 
himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped,  so  that  he,  as 
God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God  (2  Thess. 
2:4).  To  this  interpretation  three  objections  have  been  urged.  I.  The 
first  is  that  it  involves  an  anticlimax  unworthy  of  Isaiah.  After  threaten- 
ing to  ascend  the  heavens  and  surmount  the  stars,  something  equally  or  still 
more  aspiring  might  have  been  expected  ;  but  instead  of  this,  he  simply 
adds,  I  will  sit  upon  Mount  Zion  and  Mount  Moriah  north  of  it.  This  by 
itself  can  have  little  weight,  partly  because  it  is  a  mere  rhetorical  objection, 
partly  because  it  supposes  Zion  and  Moriah  to  be  mentioned  as  mere  hills, 
whereas  they  are  referred  to  as  the  residence  of  God,  and  by  his  presence 
invested  with  a  dignity  equal  at  least  to  that  of  clouds  and  stars.  2.  But  in 
the  next  place  it  is  urged  that  although  this  allusion  to  the  sacred  mountains  of 
Jerusalem  would  be  perfectly  appropriate  if  uttered  by  a  Jew,  it  is  wholly 
misplaced  in  the  mouth  of  a  heathen,  the  rather  as  Isaiah  makes  the  heathen 
speak  elsewhere  in  accordance  with  their  own  superstitions,  and  not  in  the 
language  of  the  true  religion.  (See  ch.  10 :  10.  36  :  18,  19.  37  :  12.)  In 
weighing  this  objection,  due  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  facts,  that 
the  writer  is  himself  a  Hebrew,  writing  for  the  use  of  Hebrew  readers,  and  * 
that  the  conqueror,  in  uttering  such  a  threat,  would  of  course  have  reference 
to  the  belief  of  the  conquered,  and  might  therefore  naturally  threaten  to  rival 
or  excel  their  God  upon  his  chosen  ground.  3.  The  third  objection  is  that 
the  failure  of  these  impious  hopes  is  obviously  implied,  whereas  the  threaten- 
ing to  take  possession  of  Mount  Zion  and  Moriah  was  abundantly  fulfilled 
before  the  time  at  which  we  must  suppose  this  song  of  triumph  to  be  uttered. 
This  is 'true,  so  far  as  the  mere  possession  of  the  ground  is  concerned,  but 
not  true  as  to  the  equality  with  God  which  the  conqueror  expected  to  derive 
from  it,  as  the  first  clause  clearly  shows.  He  had  said,  I  will  sit  upon  the  sacred 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  281 

hills,  ami  thereby  be  the  equal  of  Jehovah  ;  but  instead  of  tin-  In-  is  brought 
down  to  the  grave.  Whether  the  weight  of  argument  preponderates  in 
favour  of  the  old  interpretation  or  against  it,  that  of  authority  is  now  altoge- 
ther on  the  side  of  the  new  one.  This,  as  originally  stated  by  J.  D.  Michae- 
lis,  makes  the  Babylonian  speak  the  language  of  a  heathen,  and  with  refer- 
ence to  the  old  and  wide-spread  oriental  notion  of  a  very  high  mountain  in 
the  extreme  north,  where  the  gods  were  believed  to  reside,  as  in  the  Greek 
Olympus.  This  is  the  Meru  of  the  Hindoo  mythology,  and  the  Elborz  or 
Elborj  of  the  old  Zend  books.  The  details  of  this  belief  are  given  by  Ge- 
senius  in  the  first  appendix  to  his  Commentary.  According  to  J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis,  there  is  also  an  allusion  to  this  figment  in  the  mention  of  the  stars, 
which  were  supposed  to  rest  upon  the  summit  of  the  mountain.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  clause,  as  thus  explained,  is,  '  I  will  take  my  seat  among  or 
above  the  gods  upon  their  holy  mountain.'  This  interpretation  is  supposed 
to  be  obscurely  hinted  in  the  Septuagint  Version  («V  oqei  vyrjXcp,  im  ia  oqtj 
ra  vxprjXa  ia.  nobg  jionour)  and  in  the  similar  terms  of  the  Peshito.  Theo- 
doret  remarks  upon  the  verse,  that  the  highest  mountains  upon  earth  are 
said  to  be  those  separating  Media  and  Assyria,  meaning  the  highest  summits 
of  the  Caucasus.  The  Targum  also,  though  it  renders  ^sia—in  mountain  of 
the  covenant,  translates  the  last  words  X3ns:s  ^D  extremities  of  the  north. 
As  the  mythological  allusion  is  in  this  case  put  into  the  mouth  of  a  heathen, 
there  is  not  the  same  objection  to  it  as  in  other  cases  where  it  seems  to 
be  recognized  and  sanctioned  by  the  writer.  It  may  be  made  a  question, 
however,  whether  the  difficulty  of  an  anticlimax  is  not  as  real  here  as  in  the 
other  case.  How  is  the  oriental  Olympus  any  more  m  keeping  with  the 
skies  and  stars,  than  Zion  and  Moriah,  considered  as  the  dwelling  of  Jeho- 
vah ?  It  may  also  be  objected  that  the  usual  meaning  of  isia  is  here 
departed  from,  and  that  according  to  Gesenius's  own  showing  the  sacred 
mountain  of  the  Zend  and  Hindoo  books  is  not  in  the  extreme  north  but 
in  the  very  centre  of  the  earth.  It  might  even  be  doubted  whether  *tOT 
•jibs  means  the  extreme  north  at  all,  were  it  not  for  the  analogous  expres- 
sion in  v.  15,  which  will  be  explained  below.  Notwithstanding  these  objec- 
tions, all  the  recent  writers  have  adopted  this  hypothesis,  including  Heng- 
stenberg,  who  gives  the  same  sense  to  "pB*  ^rs"P  in  his  commentary  on  Ps. 
48 :  3.  Ewald  translates  Igiar^B  the  mountain  of  all  the  gods  (im  Berge 
aller  Gotter).  The  general  meaning  of  the  verse  is  of  course  the  same  on 
either  hypothesis.  It  is  characteristic  of  Knobel's  eagerness  to  convict  the 
sacred  writers  of  astronomical  blunders,  that  he  makes  the  simple  phrase 
above  the  stars  mean  on  the  upper  side  of  the  vault  as  the  stars  are  on  the 
under  side.  The  expression  stars  of  God  does  not  merely  describe  them 
as  his  creatures,  but  as  being  near  him,  in  the  upper  world  or  heaven. 


282 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XIV. 


V.  14.  I  will  mount  above  the  cloud-heights;  I  will  make  myself  like 
the  Most  High.  This  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  simple  expression  of 
unbounded  arrogance  ;  but  Knobel  thinks  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the 
oriental  custom  of  calling  their  kings  gods,  or  to  the  fact  that  Syrian  and 
Phenician  kings  did  actually  so  describe  themselves  (Ezek.  28 :  2.  6.  9. 
2  Mace.  9:  12).  According  to  Grotius  and  Vitringa,  the  singular  noun  32? 
is  here  used  to  designate  the  cloud  of  the  divine  presence  in  the  tabernacle 
and  temple.  This  would  agree  well  with  the  old  interpretation  of  v.  13  ; 
but  according  to  the  other  hypothesis,  as  is  a  collective,  meaning  clouds  in 
general.  Hendewerk  describes  this  as  a  literal  explanation  of  the  foregoing 
figures.  It  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  them.  Some  under- 
stand him  to  mean  that  he  will  ride  upon  the  clouds  as  his  chariot ;  but 
Gesenius,  that  he  will  control  the  clouds,  as  conquerors  are  elsewhere 
said  to  ride  on  the  heights  of  the  earth  (ch.  58:  14.  Deut.  32:  13.  33  :  29. 
Mic.  1:3).  Some  suppose  cloud  to  denote  a  multitude,  as  in  the  phrase  a 
cloud  of  witnesses  (Heb.  12:  1),  and  so  understand  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase 
(kesj  *o),  which  appears  however  to  be  only  another  method  of  expressing 
the  idea  of  superiority.  Gill  thinks  that  the  clouds  may  be  the  ministers  of 
the  word.  Cocceius  makes  it  mean  the  word  itself,  and  the  ascent  above 
them  the  suppression  of  the  Scriptures  and  their  subordination  to  tradition 
by  the  church  of  Rome,  from  which  he  draws  the  inference  that  the  Pope 
is  not  the  vicar  of  Christ,  but  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  adds  with  great 
simplicity,  l  non  morabimur  in  his,  quae  sunt  evidentia,  diutius.'  As  Siewk 
is  a  reflexive  form  (Gesen.  <§>  53.  2),  it  means  not  merely  I  will  be  like,  but 
I  will  make  myself  like,  or  as  Michaelis  supposes,  I  will  act  like.  Sanctius 
understands  him  as  declaring  that  he  will  work  miracles  as  God  had  done 
so  often  from  the  clouds.  As  }V&&  was  a  term  also  used  by  the  Phenicians 
to  denote  the  Supreme  God,  Henderson  regards  it  here  as  specially  empha- 
tic. "  Not  satisfied  with  making  himself  equal  to  any  of  the  inferior  deities, 
his  ambition  led  him  to  aspire  after  an  equality  with  the  Supreme."  He 
also  observes  that  the  use  of  this  term  does  not  imply  that  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon was  a  monotheist,  since  in  all  the  modifications  of  polytheism,  one  god 
has  been  regarded  as  superior  to  the  rest. 

V.  15.  But  instead  of  being  exalted  to  heaven,  thou  shalt  only  be 
brought  down  to  hell — (not  to  the  sides  of  the  north,  but)  to  the  depths  of 
the  pit.  T|5<  has  its  proper  sense  of  only  (Winer  s.  v.)  but  in  order  to 
accommodate  the  idiom  of  other  tongues  is- variously  rendered  but  (Lowth), 
yes  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  no  (Ewald)  etc.  Some  interpreters  observe  that 
bias?  is  here  confounded  with  the  grave — others  that  Tia  must  have  the 
sense  of  M*£ — opposite  deductions  from  the  same  parallelism.  The  cor- 
rect view  of  the  matter  is  taken  by  Knobel,  who  observes  that  the  idea  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XIV.  283 

bis'-a  itself  is  originally  nothing  more  than  that  of  the  grave,  so  that  the  two 
run  into  one  another,  without  any  attempt  to  discriminate  precisely  what 
belongs  exclusively  to  either.  (Vide  supra  ad  v.  9.)  Against  the  strict 
application  of  the  last  clause  to  the  grave  is  the  subsequent  description  of 
the  royal  body  as  unbtlried.  But  the  imagery  is  unquestionably  borrowed 
from  the  grave. — Clericus  and  Barnes  understand  by  sides  the  horizontal 
excavations  in  the  oriental  sepulchres  or  catacombs.  But  according  to  its 
probable  etymology  the  Hebrew  word  does  not  mean  sides  in  the  ordinary 
sense,  but  rather  hinder  parts  and  then  remote  parts  or  extremities,  as  it  is 
explained  by  the  Targum  here  and  in  v.  13.  The  specific  reference  may 
be  either  to  extreme  height,  extreme  distance,  or  extreme  depth,  according 
to  the  context.  Here  the  last  sense  is  required  by  the  mention  of  the  pit, 
and  the  word  is  accordingly  translated  in  the  Vulgate  profundum,  and  in  the 
Septuagint  more  freely  ia  deptha. 

V.  16.  Those  seeing  thee  shall  gaze  (or  stare)  at  thee,  they  shall  look 
at  thee  attentively,  (and  say)  is  this  the  man  that  made  the  earth  shake, 
that  made  kingdoms  tremble  f  Umbreit,  Knobel,  and  others  suppose  the 
Prophet  to  be  still  describing  the  reception  of  the  king  in  the  world  below. 
Gill,  on  the  contrary,  says  "  these  are  the  words  of  the  dead,  speaking  of 
the  living,  when  they  should  see  the  carcass  of  the  king  of  Babylon  lying 
on  the  ground."  This  agrees  much  better  with  the  subsequent  context ; 
but  the  simplest  and  most  natural  supposition  is  that  the  scene  in  the  other 
world  is  closed,  and  that  the  Prophet,  or  triumphant  Israel,  is  now  describ- 
ing what  shall  take  place  above  ground.  The  gazing  mentioned  in  the  first 
clause  is  not  merely  the  effect  of  curiosity  but  of  incredulous  surprise.  The 
Vulgate  gives  WP|«£  the  specific  sense  of  stooping  down  (inclinabuntur)  in 
order  to  examine  more  attentively.  J.  D.  Michaelis  strangely  ascribes  to  it 
the  sense  of  regarding  with  tender  sympathy,  which  is  as  arbitrary  as  Cal- 
vin's favourite  notion  of  derision,  here  repeated  (iterum  propheta  regem  deri- 
det),  and  faithfully  copied  by  the  later  writers.  The  prominent  if  not  the 
only  feeling  here  expressed  is  neither  scorn  nor  pity  but  astonishment. 
ttyiarv;  is  supposed  to  be  descriptive  of  the  salutary  influence  on  the  specta- 
tors, by  Clericus  (prudente  se  gerent)  and  Augusti  (an  deinem  Beyspiele 
klug  werden),  and  the  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed  by  Aben  Ezra 
(*pi32?3  DOT  nri'c).  But  the  usual  sense  of  paying  strict  attention  is  much 
more  appropriate.  Henderson's  idea  that  the  Hithpael  of  "ps  means  to  con- 
sider and  reconsider,  as  if  unable  to  believe  one's  senses,  is  not  justified  by 
usage,  and  appears  to  be  founded  on  a  misapprehension  of  a  remark  by 
Hitzig,  who  attaches  the  same  meaning  not  to  the  peculiar  form  of  one  verb 
but  to  the  junction  of  the  two.  Gesenius  and  DeWette  weaken  the  second 
clause  by  changing  its  idiomatic  form  for  a  more  modern  one,  before  whom 


284  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

the  earth  shook,  kingdoms  trembled.     Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk, 
restore  the  original  construction. 

V.  17.  Made  a  (fruitful  or  habitable)  world  like  the  desert,  destroyed 
its  cities,  and  its  captives  did  not  set  free  homewards.     These  are  still  the 
words  of  the  astonished  spectators  as  they  behold  the  body  of  the  slain  king. 
The  contrast  in  the  first  clause  is  heightened  by  supposing  an  intentional 
allusion  to  the  primary  meaning  of  bnn,   as  expressed  by  Cocceius  (frugi- 
feram)  and  Junius  (orbem  habitalem).     The  version  inhabited  land,  given 
by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti,  would  be  still  better  but  for  the  constant 
usage  of  b^Pi  as  an  equivalent  to  y^  in  its  widest  sense.     Hitzig  observes 
that  baft  must  be  taken  as  a  masculine  noun,  in  order  to  account  for  the 
suffix  in   vn99  which  cannot  be  referred  to  the  king  like  that  in  Wg&qfc     If 
so,  it  is  better  to  refer  the  latter  also  to  the  same  antecedent  for  the  sake  of 
uniformity,  as  Knobel  does,  since  they  may  just  as  well  be  said  to  belong  to 
the  world  as  the  cities.    But  the  same  end  may  be  gained,  and  the  anomaly 
of  gender  done  away,  by  referring  both  the  pronouns  to  the  king  himself, 
who  might  just  as  well  be  said  to  have  destroyed  his  own  cities  as  his  own 
land  and  his  own  people  (v.  20),  the  rather  as  his  sway  is  supposed  to  have 
been  universal.     The  construction  of  the  last  clause  is  somewhat  difficult. 
The  general  meaning  evidently  is  that  he  did  not  release  his  prisoners,  and 
this  is  expressed  in  a  general  way  by  the  Septuagint  and  Peshito.     The 
Targum  reads,  who  did  not  open  the  door  to  his  captives ;  the  Vulgate 
more  exactly,  the  prison  (carcerem).     This  construction  supplies  a  preposi- 
tion  before  captives,  and  regards  the  termination  of  nrva  as  merely  para- 
gogic.    Junius  and  Tremellius  understand  it  as  the  local  or  directive  H  and 
make  the  word  mean  home  or  homewards  (non  solvebat  reversuros  domum). 
This  construction  is   adopted  by  Henderson  and  others,  who  suppose  the 
same  ellipsis  of  the  verb  return  or  send  before  the  last  word.    But  the  other 
recent  versions  follow  DeDieu  in  connecting  nns  directly  with  lrtw»3,  with- 
out supplying  any  thing,  and  giving  to  the  verb  itself  the  sense  of  releasing 
or  dismissing.     This  construction  is  also  given  in  the  margin  of  the  English 
Bible  {did  not  let  his  prisoners  loose  homewards),  while  the  text  coincides 
with  the  Vulgate  (opened  not  the  house  of  his  prisoners). 

V.  18.  All  kings  of  nations,  all  of  them,  lie  in  state  (or  glory),  each  in 
his  house.  There  is  here  a  special  reference  to  the  peculiar  oriental  feeling 
with  respect  to  burial.  Diodorus  says  that  the  Egyptians  paid  far  more 
attention  to  the  dwellings  of  the  dead  than  of  the  living.  Some  of  the  great- 
est national  works  have  been  intended  for  this  purpose,  such  as  the  pyra- 
mids, the  temple  of  Belus,  and  the  cemetery  at  Persepolis.  The  environs  of 
Jerusalem  are  full  of  ancient  sepulchres.     The  want  of  burial  is  spoken  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  285 

in  Scripture  as  disgraceful  even  to  a  private  person  (1  Kings  13 :  22,)  much 
more  to  a  sovereign  (2  Chr.  21  :  20.  34  :  24).  The  ancient  oriental  prac- 
tice of  burying  above  ground  and  in  solid  structures,  often  reared  by  those 
who  were  to  occupy  them  (vide  infra,  ch.  22:  16)  will  account  for  the  use 
of  house  here  in  the  sense  of  sepulchre,  without  supposing  any  reference  to 
the  burial  of  kings  within  their  palaces,  rv?a  is  not  used  elsewhere  abso- 
lutely in  the  same  sense,  but  the  grave  is  called  obis  n^3  (Ecc.  12:  5)  and 
inbsb  irra  rvo  (Job  30:  23),  the  first  of  which  phrases  is  copied  in  the 
Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  that  before  us  (m^bs  n^na).  Henderson's  version 
lie  in  state  may  seem  inappropriate  to  burial,  but  is  in  fact  happily  descrip- 
tive of  the  oriental  method  of  sepulture.  Lowth's  version  lie  down  gives 
too  active  a  meaning  to  the  verb,  which  is  intended  to  describe  the  actual 
condition  of  the  dead.  The  words  of  this  verse  might  possibly  be  under- 
stood to  describe  the  generality  of  kings  as  dying  in  their  beds  and  at  home 
— they  have  lain  doivn  (i.  e.  died)  each  in  his  own  house.  But  there  is  no 
need  of  dissenting  from  the  unanimous  judgment  of  interpreters,  that  the 
verse  relates  to  burial.  Knobel  supposes  a  specific  allusion  to  the  kings 
whom  the  deceased  had  conquered  or  oppressed  ;  but  nothimg  more  is  neces- 
sarily expressed  by  the  words  than  the  general  practice  with  respect  to 
royal  bodies. 

V.  19.  With  the  customary  burial  of  kings  he  now  contrasts  the  treat- 
ment of  the  Babylonian's  body.     And  thou  art  cast  out  from  thy  grave — 
like  a  despised  branch,  the  raiment  of  the  slain,  pierced  with  the  sword, 
going  down  to  the  stones  of  the  pit,  (even)  like  a  trampled  carcass  (as 
thou  art).     Gesenius  and  the  other  modern  writers  understand  the  Prophet 
as  contrasting  the  neglect  or  exposure  of  the  royal  body  with  the  honour- 
able burial  of  the  other  slain,  those  who  are  (soon)  to  go  down  to  the  stones 
of  the  grave,  i.  e.  to  be  buried  in  hewn  sepulchres.     Hitzig  understands  by 
the  stones  of  the  pit,  the  stones  which  closed  the  mouths  of  the  sepulchres, 
— Henderson,  stone  coffins  or  sarcophagi — Knobel,  the  ordinary  stone  tombs 
of  the  East  resembling  altars.     All  these  interpreters  follow  Cocceius  in 
explaining  &nb  as  a  passive  participle,  clothed  (i.  e.  covered)  with  the  slain, 
which  may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Vulgate  version,  obvolutus  cum  his 
qui  interfecti  sunt  gladio.     But  this  form  of  expression,  covered  with  the 
slain  who  are  buried  in  stone  sepulchres,  is  rather  descriptive  of  a  common 
burial  than  of  any  invidious  distinction.     It  is  much  more  natural  to  under- 
stand lia  ^x  bx  Tfjtj  as  a  description  of  the  indiscriminate  interment  of  a 
multitude  of  slain  in  a  common   grave,  such  as  a  pit  containing  stones  or 
filled  with  stones  to  cover  the  bodies.    The  reference  assumed  by  the  Dutch 
Annotators  and  Doederlein,  to  the  covering  of  the  slain  with  stones  upon  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  is  forbidden  by  the  terms  going  down  and  pit.     The 


286  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 


explanation  just  proposed  would  be  consistent  either  with  Cocceius's  inter- 
pretation of  dnb,   or  with  the  older  one  which  makes  it  as  usual  a  noun 
meaning  raiment,  and  supplies  the  particle  of  comparison  before  it.     In  the 
latter  case,  the  direct  comparison  is  not  with  the  bodies  of  the  common  dead, 
but  with   their  blood-stained  garments,  as  disgusting  and  abhorrent  objects. 
As   isb  occurs  elsewhere   only  in  Gen.  45 :  17,  where  it  means  to  load, 
Cocceius  here  translates  it  onustis  gladio,  and  Junius  onustorum  (crebris 
ictibus)  gladii.     The  later  writers   adopt  the  rabbinical  derivation  of  the 
word  from  a  cognate  root  in  Arabic,  which  means  to  pierce  or  perforate. 
The  kind  of  death  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  particularly  mentioned,  in 
order  to  account  for  the  staining  of  the  garments.     By  ssna  TO3  Lowth  un- 
derstands a  tree  on  which  a  malefactor  had  been  hung,   and  which  was 
therefore  looked  upon  as  cursed  (Deut.  21  :  23.  Gal.  3 :  13),  and  according 
to  Maimonides  was  buried  with  him.     This  ingenious  combination  accounts 
for  the  use  of  the  strong  word  asni,  which  is  scarcely  applicable  to  the  use- 
less or  even  troublesome  and  noxious  branches  that  are  thrown  aside  and 
left  to  rot.     To  remove  the  same  difficulty,  J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  "i2p  the 
supposititious  sense  of  ulcer,  here  put  for  a  leprous  body.    Some  suppose  nsa 
to  be  here  used,  as  in  ch.  11:1,  with  a  genealogical  allusion,  the  despised 
branch  or  scion  of  a  royal  stock,     sp?j3E  is   explained   by  Gesenius  and 
Maurer  to  mean  simply  without  a  grave,  by  Hitzig  and  Knobel  away  from 
thy  grave,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  been  in  it.    This  prosaic  objection 
has  not  hindered  Ewald  from  using  the  expressive  phrase  out  of  thy  grave, 
which  is  no  more  incorrect  or  unintelligible  than  it  is  to  speak  of  an  heir  as 
being  deprived  of  his  estate,  or  a  king's  son  of  his  crown,  before  they  are 
in  actual  possession.     Henderson  even  goes  so  far  as  to  deny  that  yn  depends 
upon  the  verb  at  all,  a  statement  equally  at  variance  with  usage  and  the 
masoretic  accents.      In  order  to   reconcile  this   verse  with  the  history  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  to  whom  they  exclusively  apply  it,  the  Jews  have  an  old 
tradition,  given  not  only  in  the  Seder  Olam  but  by  Jerome  in  almost  the 
same  words,  that  when  Nebuchadnezzar  recovered  his  reason,  he  found 
Evilmerodach  his  son  upon  the  throne,  and  threw  him  into  prison.     When 
the  father  died,  the  son  refused  to  become  king  again,  lest  his  predecessor 
should  again  return  ;  and  in  order  to  convince  him  of  the  old  man's  death, 
the  body  was  disinterred  and  exposed  to  public  view.     That  the  terms  of 
the  prediction  were  literally  fulfilled  in  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  Nabonned  or 
Belshazzar,  is  admitted  by  Gesenius  to  be  highly  probable,  from  the  hatred 
with  which  this  avoaiog  paadevg  (as  Xenophon  calls  him)  was  regarded  by 
the  people.     Such  a  supposition  is  not  precluded  by  the  same  historian's 
statement  that  Cyrus  gave  a  general  permission  to  bury  the  dead  ;  for,  as 
Henderson  observes,  his  silence  in  relation  to  the  king  rather  favours  the 
conclusion  that  he  was  made  an  exception,  either  by  the  people  or  the  con- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   XIV.  287 

queror.  There  is  no  need,  however,  as  we  have  already  seen,  of  seeking 
historical  details  in  this  passage,  which  is  rather  a  prediction  of  the  down- 
fall of  the  empire  than  of  the  fate  of  any  individual  monarch. 

V.  20.  Thou  shalt  not  be  joined  with  them  (the  other  kings  of  the 
nations)  in  burial,  because  thy  land  thou  hast  destroyed,  thy  people  thou 
hast  slain.  Let  the  seed  of  evil-doers  be  named  no  more  forever.  Gesenius 
and  other  recent  writers  think  the  reference  to  the  kings  in  v.  18  too 
remote,  and  this  is  one  principal  reason  for  interpreting  v.  19  in  the  way 
already  mentioned,  as  exhibiting  a  contrast  between  those  who  receive  burial 
and  those  who  do  not.  The  sense  of  this  verse  then  will  be,  thou  shalt  not 
be  joined  with  them,  i.  e.  with  those  who  go  down  to  the  stones  of  the  grave. 
But  the  remoteness  of  the  antecedent  in  v.  18  ceases  to  occasion  any  diffi- 
culty when  the  whole  of  the  nineteenth  verse  is  a  description  of  the  king's 
unburied  and  exposed  condition.  On  this  hypothesis,  v.  18  describes  the 
state  of  other  deceased  kings,  v.  1 9  the  very  different  state  of  this  one,  and 
v.  20  draws  the  natural  inference,  that  the  latter  cannot  be  joined  in  burial 
with  the  former.  Instead  of  thy  land  and  thy  people,  the  Septuagint  has 
my  land  and  my  people,  making  the  clause  refer  directly  to  the  Babylonian 
conquest  and  oppression  of  Judea.  Jerome  suggests  that  the  same  sense 
may  be  put  upon  the  common  text  by  making  thy  land  and  thy  people 
mean  the  land  and  people  subjected  to  thy  power  in  execution  of  God's 
righteous  judgments.  But  the  only  natural  interpretation  of  the  words  is 
that  which  applies  them  to  the  Babylonian  tyranny  as  generally  exercised. 
The  charge  here  brought  against  the  king  implies  that  his  power  was  given 
him  for  a  very  different  purpose.  The  older  writers  read  the  last  clause  as 
a  simple  prediction.  Thus  the  English  version  is,  the  seed  of  evil-doers 
shall  never  be  renowned.  But  the  later  writers  seem  to  make  it  more  em- 
phatic by  giving  the  future  the  force  of  an  imperative  or  optative.  For  the 
sense  of  V*yva  snt ,  vide  supra,  ch.  1 :  4.  Hitzig  and  Henderson  take  5nt 
even  here  in  the  sense  of  a  race  or  generation,  and  suppose  an^  to  refer  to 
monumental  inscriptions.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understand  the  clause 
to  mean  that  the  names  of  the  wicked  shall  not  be  perpetuated  by  transmis- 
sion in  the  line  of  their  descendants.  Others  explain  the  verb  as  meaning 
to  be  called,  i.  e.  proclaimed  or  celebrated.  It  is  now  pretty  generally 
understood  to  mean,  or  to  express  a  wish,  that  the  posterity  of  such  should 
not  be  spoken  of  at  all,  implying  both  extinction  and  oblivion. 

V.  21.  That  the  downfall  of  the  Babylonian  power  shall  be  perpetual, 
is  now  expressed  by  a  command  to  slaughter  the  children  of  the  king. 
Prepare  for  his  sons  a  slaughter,  for  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers.  Let 
them  not  arise  and  possess  the  earth,  and  fll  the  face  of  the  world  with 


288  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

cities.     This  verse  is  regarded  by  Gesenius,  Rosenmuller,  Maurer,  and 
Umbreit,  as  the  close  of  the  triumphal  song  beginning  in  v.  4.     Hitzig  and 
Hendewerk  suppose  it  to  have  closed  in  the  preceding  verse,  as  the  address 
is  no  longer  to  the  king  of  Babylon.     Ewald  extends  it  through  v.  23. 
But  these  distinctions  rest  upon  a  false  assumption  of  exact  and  artificial 
structure.     The  dramatic  form  of  the  prediction  is  repeatedly  shifted,  so 
that  the  words  of  the  triumphant  Jews,  of  the  dead,  of  the  Prophet,  and  of 
God  himself,  succeed  each  other,  as  it  were,  insensibly,  and  without  any 
attempt  to  make  the  points  of  the  transition  prominent.     The  command  in 
the  first  clause  is  not  addressed  specifically  to  the  Medes  and  Persians,  but 
more  indefinitely  to  the  executioners  of  God's  decree  against  Babylon,  or, 
as  Calvin  calls  them,  his  lictores  aut  carnifices.     The  reference  is  not  to 
the  children  of  Nebuchadnezzar  or  Belshazzar,  as  the  Rabbins  and  others 
have  assumed,  but  to  the  progeny  of  the  ideal  being  who  here  represents 
the  Babylonian  monarch.     Hitzig,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk,  make  naa» 
mean  a  place  of  slaughter  (Schlachtbank),  after  the  analogy  of  the  cognate 
form  natE .     Gesenius  and  Ewald  give  it  the  general  sense  of  massacre 
(Blutbad).     There  are  three  constructions  of  the  last  clause  authorized  by 
usage,     wba  may  agree  either  with  c^s  ,  or  with  "OS  ,  or  with  vsa  .     The 
last  is  entitled  to  the  preference  because  it  is  the  subject  of  the  two  preceding 
verbs.     Cocceius,   Hendewerk,  Umbreit,  and  others  make  this  last  clause 
the  expression  of  a  hope  or  a  promise — and  (then)  the  world  will  (again) 
be  full  of  cities — or,  that  the  world  may  (again)  be  full  of  cities.    Gesenius, 
who  ascribes  this  construction  to  Von  Kolln,  objects  that  it  gives  to  bz  one 
half  of  its  meaning  (that),  and  rejects  the  other  half  (not).     But  the  sub- 
junctive construction  of  the  clause  is   a  mere  assimilation  to  the  forms  of 
occidental  syntax.     The  Hebrew  construction  is,  they  shall  not  arise  (or  let 
them  not  arise),  and  the  negative  may  either  be  confined  to  the  first  two 
verbs  or  extended  to  the  third.     The  last,  however,  is  more  natural  on 
account  of  the  exact  resemblance  in  the  form  of  the  two  members,  fn«  si«3*ni 
and  Vrirr^B  «*Vg . — The  Targum,  followed  by  the  Rabbins,  gives  to  b*ns 
the  sense  of  enemies,  as  in  1  Sam.  28:  16.  Ps.  139:  20,  and  fill  the  face 
of  the  world  with  enemies — or  enemies  fill  the  face  of  the  world.     This 
meaning  of  the  word  is  adopted  by  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  Rosenmuller,  and 
others.     Hitzig  reads  t^S  ruins,  Ewald  WTO  tyrants,  Knobel  t^sn  wicked 
ones.     The  best  sense,  on  the  whole,  is  afforded  by  the  old  interpretation 
given  by  the^  Vulgate  and  Saadias,  and  retained  by  Umbreit  and  Hendewerk, 
which  takes  d^s  in  its  usual  sense  as  the  plural  of  -ns ,  and  understands  the 
clause  to  mean,  lest  they  overspread  and  colonize  the  earth.    The  objection 
that  the  Babylonians  had  been  just  before  described  as  wasters  and  destroy- 
ers, cannot  weigh  against  the  constant  usage  of  the  word. 


ISAIAH,   CIIA1\   XIV.  289 


V.  2*2.  This  verso  contains  an  intimation  that  the  destruction  just  pre- 
dicted is  to  be  the  work  not  of  man  merely  but  of  God,  and  is  to  compre- 
hend not  only  the  royal  family  but  the  whole  population.  And  I  (myself) 
will  rise  up  against  them  (or  upon  them),  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  and  will 
cut  off  from  Babylon  (literally,  with  respect  to  Babylon)  name  and  remnant 
and  progeny  and  offspring.  The  last  four  nouns  are  put  together  to  express 
posterity  in  the  most  general  and  universal  manner,  "ps  and  ""=3  occur 
together  in  Gen.  21 :  13.  Job  18:  19.  The  specific  meaning  son  and 
nephew  (i.  e.  nepos,  grandson),  given  in  the  English  Version  and  most  of 
the  early  writers,  and  retained  by  Umbreit,  is  derived  from  the  Chaldee 
Paraphrase  (-a  im  is).  Aben  Ezra  makes  the  language  still  more  definite 
by  explaining  fiia  to  be  a  man  himself,  law  a  father,  "ps  a  son,  and  1S3  a 
grandson.  This  supposes  "Wtt  to  be  equivalent  in  meaning  to  i©s  "HUB  used 
in  Lev.  18:  6.  25:  49  for  a  blood-relation.  So  Montanus  renders  it  here, 
consanguineum.  But  the  word  which  has  that  sense  is  of  a  different  form, 
and  according  to  Gesenius,  of  a  different  origin.  The  more  general  mean- 
ing of  the  terms,  now  held  to  be  correct,  is  given  in  the  Septuagint  (ovo^a 
xai  xardletfma  xai  omoua)  and  the  Vulgate  (nomen  et  reliquias  et  germen  et 
progeniem).  Doederlein's  version,  the  fruitful  and  the  barren,  is  entirely 
unauthorized.  Grotius  remarks  upon  the  threatening  of  this  verse,  nempe 
ad  tempus !  Cocceius  applies  this  verse  and  the  one  preceding  to  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  subject  to  the  Roman  See,  and  thinks  it  pro- 
bable that  T?  and  Ibj  may  be  distinctive  terms  for  bishops  and  kings.  The 
threatening  is  applied  by  other  classes  of  interpreters  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  Belshazzar,  but  most  correctly  to  the  king  of  Babylon,  not  as  a  collec- 
tive appellation  merely,  but  as  an  ideal  person  representing  the  whole  line 
of  kings.  The  agreement  of  the  prophecy  with  history  is  shown  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis  from  the  facts,  that  none  of  the  ancient  royal  family  of  Babylon 
ever  regained  a  throne,  and  that  no  Babylonian  empire  ever  rose  after  the 
destruction  of  the  first,  Alexander  the  Great's  project  of  restoring  it  having 
been  defeated  by  his  death. 

V.  23.  And  I  will  render  it  (literally,  place  it  for)  a  possession  (or 
inheritance)  of  the  porcupine,  and  pools  of  water,  and  will  siveep  it  with 
the  broom  (or  besom)  of  destruction.  iBp  has  been  variously  explained  to 
be  the  tortoise,  beaver,  bittern  etc.,  but  since  Bochart  it  is  commonly  agreed 
to  mean  the  porcupine  or  hedgehog.  It  is  here  mentioned  only  as  a  solitary 
animal  frequenting  marshy  grounds.  The  construction  is  not,  I  will  make 
the  pools  of  water  a  possession  etc.  by  drying  them  up — nor,  I  will  make  it 
a  possession  for  pools  of  water — but,  I  will  make  it  a  possession  for  the  por- 
cupine and  (will  convert  it  into)  pools  of  water.  The  exposure  of  the  level 
plains  of  Babylonia  to  continual  inundation  without  great  preventive  care, 

19 


290  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

and  the  actual  promotion  of  its  desolation  by  this  very  cause,  are  facts  dis- 
tinctly stated  by  the  ancient  writers.     Some  suppose  this  evil  to  have  had 
its  origin  in  the  diversion  of  the  waters  of  the  Euphrates  by  Cyrus.     The 
Septuagint  version  of  the  last  clause  (y.a\  &rjvco  avx\v  nrjXov  §a.Qa&Qov  sig 
anwXuav),  adopted  with  little  variation  by  Clericus  (demergam  earn  in  pro- 
fundum  lutum  ut  earn  perdam),  and  by  Lowth  (I  will  plunge  it  in  the  miry 
gulf  of  destruction),  supposes  inKBSja  to  be  derived  from  &**»  clay  or  mire. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  refers  it  to  an  Arabic  root  meaning  to  sink  or  plunge,  and 
thus  excludes  the  allusion  to  mire  (in  den  Abgrund  des  Nichts  versenken). 
Three  of  the  ancient  versions,  followed  by  the  Talmud  and  rabbinical  inter- 
preters, make  it  mean  to  sweep,  wrhich   is  adopted  by  the  latest  writers. 
Gesenius  formerly  derived  it  from  an  obsolete  root  RU9,  but  in  his  Thesaurus 
from  i^o,  supposing  the  verb  properly  to  mean  the  removal  of  dirt.     Thus 
Aben  Ezra  explains  xaxaia  to  be  an  instrument  with  which  dirt  is  removed 
(iri7t>  tt  irp'C  ps>).    Lee,  from  an  Arabic  root,  explains  the  clause  to  mean, 
I  will  humble  it  with  the  humiliation  of  destruction  (Heb.  Lex.  s.  v).     The 
Vulgate  renders  *ra©n  as  a  participle  (terens),  in  which  it  is  followed  by 
Calvin   (evacuans),  while  others  more  correctly   make  it  an    infinitive  or 
verbal  noun. 

V.  24.  From  the  distant  ^iew  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon,  the  Pro- 
phet suddenly  reverts  to  that  of  the  Assyrian  host,  either  for  the  purpose  of 
making  one  of  these  events  accredit  the  prediction  of  the  other,  or  for  the 
purpose  of  assuring  true  believers,  that  while  God  had  decreed  the  deliver- 
ance of  his  people  from  remoter  dangers,  he  would  also  protect  them  from 
those  near  at  hand.  Jehovah  of  Hosts  hath  sworn,  saying,  Surely  (literally, 
if  not)  as  I  have  planned  (or  imagined)  it  has  come  to  pass,  and  as  I  have 
devised,  it  shall  stand  (or  be  established).  On  the  elliptical  formula  of 
swearing,  vide  supra,  ch.  5 :  9.  We  may  either  supply  before  &6  d»,  with 
Calvin  and  Vitringa,  let  me  not  be  recognized  as  God — or  as  Junius  briefly 
and  boldly  expresses  it,  mentiar — or  else  we  may  suppose  the  elliptical 
expression  to  have  been  transferred  from  man  to  God,  without  regard  to  its 
original  and  proper  import.  Kimchi  explains  rrtVHi  to  be  a  preterite  used  for 
a  future  (7>pa>  oi|)P3  w),  and  this  construction  is  adopted  in  most  versions, 
ancient  and  modern.  It  is,  however,  altogether  arbitrary  and  in  violation  of 
the  only  safe  rule  as  to  the  use  of  the  tenses,  viz.  that  they  should  have  their 
proper  and  distinctive  force,  unless  forbidden  by  the  context  or  the  nature 
of  the  subject,  which  is  very  far  from  being  the  case  here,  as  we  shall  see 
below.  Gesenius  and  DeWette  evade  the  difficulty  by  rendering  both  the 
verbs  as  presents,  a  construction  which  is  often  admissible  and  even  necessary 
in  a  descriptive  context,  but  when  used  indiscriminately  or  inappropriately, 
tends  both  to  weaken  and  obscure  the  sense.    Ewald  and  Umbreit  make  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  291 


first  verb  present  and  the  second  future,  which  is  scarcely  if  at  all  less  objec- 
tionable. The  true  force  of  the  preterite  and  future  forms,  as  here  employed,  is 
recognized  by  Aben  Ezra,  who  explains  the  clause  to  mean  that  according 
to  God's  purpose,  it  has  come  to  pass  and  will  come  to  pass  hereafter  (rvr>  j; 
vpxb  tvrv  pi).  The  antithesis  is  rendered  still  more  prominent  by  Jarchi, 
by  whom  the  verse  is  paraphrased  as  follows — '  Thou  hast  seen,  oh  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, how  the  words  of  the  prophets  of  Israel  have  been  fulfilled  in 
Sennacherib,  to  break  Assyria  in  my  land,  and  by  this  thou  mayest  know 
that  what  I  have  purposed  against  thee  shall  also  come  to  pass.'  (Compare 
Ezek.  31  :  3-18).  This  view  of  the  matter  makes  the  mention  of  Assyria 
in  this  connexion  altogether  natural,  as  if  he  had  said,  of  the  truth  of  these 
predictions  against  Babylon  a  proof  has  been  afforded  in  the  execution  of 
the  threatenings  against  Assyria.  The  only  objection  to  it  is  that  the  next 
verse  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  Assyrian  overthrow,  which  would  seem  to 
imply  that  the  last  clause  of  this  verse,  as  well  as  the  first,  relates  to  that 
event.  Another  method  of  expounding  the  verse  therefore  is  to  apply  nrpfi 
and  Dipn  to  the  same  events,  but  in  a  somewhat  different  sense — c  As  I 
intended  it  has  come  to  pass,  and  as  I  purposed  it  shall  continue.'  The 
Assyrian  power  is  already  broken,  and  shall  never  be  restored.  This  strict 
interpretation  of  the  preterite  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the  prophecy 
was  actually  uttered  after  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army.  Such 
would  indeed  be  the  natural  inference  from  this  verse  alone,  but  for  reasons 
which  will  be  explained  below,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  Prophet  merely 
takes  his  stand  in  vision  at  a  point  of  time  between  the  two  events  of  which 
he  speaks,  so  that  both  verbs  are  really  prophetic,  the  one  of  a  remote  the 
other  of  a  proximate  futurity,  but  for  that  very  reason  their  distinctive  forms 
should  be  retained  and  recognized.  Yet  the  only  modern  writers  who 
appear  to  do  so  in  translation  are  Calvin  and  Cocceius,  who  haws  factum  est, 
and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  has  ist  geschehen.  The  acute  and  learned  but 
superficial  Clericus  jumps  to  the  conclusion  that  this  verse  begins  an  entirely 
new  prophecy,  a  dictum  eagerly  adopted  by  the  modern  German  critics 
who  are  always  predisposed  to  favour  new  views  of  the  connexion  and 
arrangement  of  the  text.  Rosenmuller  represents  these  verses  as  a  fragment 
of  a  larger  (  poem '  on  the  Assyrian  overthrow.  Gesenius  confidently  sets 
it  down  as  the  conclusion  or  continuation  of  the  tenth  chapter,  with  which  it 
exhibits  several  verbal  coincidences.  Hendewerk,  with  still  more  precision 
gives  it  place  between  vs.  27  and  28  of  that  chapter.  Hitzig  and  Knobel 
put  it  after  the  twefth  chapter  and  regard  it  as  a  prophecy  of  later  date,  but 
having  direct  reference  to  that  in  ch.  10-12.  Ewald  assigns  it  the  same 
relative  position,  but  interpolates  the  last  three  verses  of  the  seventeenth 
chapter  and  the  whole  of  the  eighteenth  between  the  twelfth  or  rather  the 
eleventh  (for  he  looks  upon  the   twelfth  as  spurious)  and  the  paragraph 


*292  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

before  us,  which  he  takes  to  be  the  winding  up  of  the  whole  prophecy. 
The  first  thing  that  will  strike  the  reader  in  this  statement  is  the  principle 
assumed  by  all  the  hypotheses,  viz.  that  similar  passages  must  belong  toge- 
ther, which  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  whatever  a  writer  had  to  say  upon 
a  certain  point  or  in  a  certain  manner  he  must  have  said  once  for  all  in  a 
single  and  continuous  composition.  On  the  same  ground  all  those  passages 
in  the  odes  of  Horace  which  contain  the  praises  of  Augustus  or  Maecenas, 
might  be  brought  together  into  a  cento  of  endless  repetitions.  To  an  ordi- 
nary reader  it  is  scarcely  more  surprising  that  an  author  should  use  the  same 
expressions  in  two  different  productions,  than  that  he  should  repeat  them  in 
the  same.  But  even  if  the  principle  assumed  were  less  unreasonable  than 
it  is,  the  different  and  inconsistent  ways  in  which  it  is  applied,  and  the 
assurance  with  which  each  new-comer  puts  his  predecessors  in  the  wrong, 
will  satisfy  most  readers  that  conjectures  which  admit  of  being  varied  and 
multiplied  ad  libitum  must  needs  be  worthless.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed 
by  the  existence  of  a  strong  and  very  obvious  motive,  on  the  part  of  neolo- 
gical  interpreters,  for  severing  this  paragraph,  if  possible,  from  \\  hat  precedes. 
The  resemblance  of  these  verses  to  the  undisputed  writings  of  Isaiah  is  too 
strong  to  leave  a  doubt  as  to  their  origin.  If  left  then  in  connexion  with 
the  previous  context,  they  establish  the  antiquity  and  authenticity  of  this 
astonishing  prediction  against  Babylon,  beyond  the  reach  of  cavil.  And  if 
this  be  admitted,  we  have  here  a  signal  instance  of  prophetic  foresight  exer- 
cised at  least  two  centuries  before  the  event.  This  conclusion  must  be 
avoided  at  all  costs  and  hazards,  and  the  sacrifice  of  taste  and  even  com- 
mon sense  is  nothing  in  comparison  with  such  an  object.  A  remote  design 
of  this  kind  may  frequently  be  traced  in  critical  decisions,  which  to  super- 
ficial observation  or  to  blinded  admiration,  seem  to  be  determined  solely  by 
the  unbiassed  application  of  universal  laws.  In  the  case  before  us,  the 
unsoundness  of  the  principle,  its  arbitrary  application,  and  the  evident 
appearances  of  sinister  design,  all  conspire  to  recommend  the  old  view  of 
the  passage,  as  immediately  connected,  with  the  previous  context,  which  is 
further  recommended  by  the  uniform  authority  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  a 
constant  tradition,  the  grammatical  construction,  and  the  perfectly  coherent 
and  appropriate  sense  which  it  puts  upon  the  passage.  It  need  scarcely  be 
added  that  the  explanation  of  the  name  Assyria,  by  Lowth  and  others,  as 
denoting  or  at  least  including  the  Babylonian  dynasty,  is  here  entirely 
untenable,  because  it  is  unnecessary.  Where  the  proper  meaning  of  the 
term  is  so  appropriate,  it  is  worse  than  useless  to  assume  one  which  at 
least  is  rare  and  dubious. 

V.  25.  He  now  declares  what  the  purpose  i?,  which  is  so  certainly 
to   be  accomplished,    namely  God's    determination  to  break  Assyria   (or 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  293 

the  Assyrian)  in  nnj  land,  and  on  my  mountains  I  will  trample  him  ; 
and  his  yoke  shall  depart  from  off  them,  and  his  burden  from  off'  his  back 
(or  shoulder)  shall  depart.  The  infinitive  depends  upon  "teaprj  in  the  verse 
preceding,  and  is  followed  by  a  finite  verb,  as  in  many  other  cases.  (See 
for  example  ch.  5:  24).  Barnes  continues  the  infinitive  construction  in  the 
next  clause  (to  remove  etc.),  while  Gesenius,  on  the  other  hand,  assimilates 
the  first  clause  to  the  second  (Assyria  is  broken  etc.),  both  which  are  gra- 
tuitous departures  from  the  form  of  the  original.  Forced  constructions  of  the 
clause  are  given  by  Junius  (when  by  breaking  Assyria  etc.  I  shall  have  tram- 
pled on  him,  then  shall  his  yoke  etc.)  and  by  Gataker  (as  by  breaking  Assyria 
etc.  I  trampled  on  him,  so  that  his  yoke  and  burden  were  removed,  in  like 
manner  Babylon  shall  be  destroyed).  Hendewerk  makes  a  frivolous  objec- 
tion to  the  translation  of  1HJW  by  Assyria,  viz.  that  Assyria  never  was  in 
Palestine.  The  use  of  the  names  of  countries  to  denote  their  governments 
and  even  their  armies  is  sufficiently  familiar,  even  without  supposing  "*i"s 
to  be  really  the  name  of  the  progenitor,  like  Israel  and  Canaan.  My  moun- 
tains some  have  understood  to  be  Mount  Zion,  others  more  generally  the 
mountains  of  Jerusalem  ;  but  it  seems  to  be  rather  a  description  of  the 
whole  land  of  Israel,  or  at  least  of  Judah,  as  a  mountainous  region.  (See 
Ezek.  38:  21.  39:  2,  4.  Zech.  12:  15.  1  Kings  10:  23.)  Calvin's  idea 
that  this  term  is  used  because  the  country  was  despised  as  a  mere  range  of 
mountains,  seems  extremely  forced.  Umbreit,  however,  also  understands 
the  words  in  my  land  as  an  allusion  to  the  contempt  of  foreigners  for  Pales- 
tine. The  expressions  of  this  verse  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to  those  of 
ch.  9:3.  10:  27.  30:  30,  31.  31  :  8.  Aben  Ezra  refers  the  plural  suffix 
in  cmbs  to  land  and  mountains,  Grotius  to  the  latter  only  ;  but  the  true 
construction  is  no  doubt  the  common  one,  which  refers  it  to  the  people  of 
Israel  collectively,  and  the  suffix  in  "rastfJ  to  the  same  people  as  an  indivi- 
dual. The  place  here  assigned  to  the  destruction  of  Assyria  sufficiently 
refutes  the  application  of  the  name  for  Babylonia  by  Calvin,  Lowth,  and 
others.  Gill  thinks  that  "  the  Assyrian  here  may  represent  the  Turks,  who 
now  possess  the  land  of  Israel,  and  shall  be  destroyed."  Cocceius  under- 
stands by  Assyria  the  Turks  and  Saracens,  and  by  the  mountains  the  once 
Christian  regions  which  they  have  usurped,  in  Armenia,  Mesopotamia,  Asia. 
Syria,  Palestine,   Egypt,   Africa,  Greece,  Thrace,  Illyria,  Hungary.     (Hi 

sane  sunt  montes  Dei  et  terra  ipsius  atque  ecclesiae suspicio  igitur 

est  prophetiam  hanc  loqui  de  hisce,  qui  nunc  Assyria  nominari  possunt.) 

V.  26.  The  Prophet  now  explains  his  previous  conjunction  of  events 
so  remote  as  the  Assyrian  overthrow  and  the  fall  of  Babylon,  by  declaring 
both  to  be  partial  executions  of  one  general  decree  against  all  hostile  and 
opposing  powers.    This  is  the  purpose  that  is  purposed  upon  all  the  earth,  and 


294  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

this  the  hand  that  is  stretched  out  over  all  the  nations.  On  the  supposition 
that  this  relates  to  Babylon  alone,  or  to  Assyria  alone,  we  are  obliged  to 
understand  the  whole  earth  and  all  nations  as  describing  the  universal  sway 
of  these  great  powers  respectively.  Henderson  applies  the  terms  to  Assyria, 
with  an  indefinite  reference  to  any  other  powers  that  might  set  themselves 
in  opposition.  The  true  interpretation  of  the  words  as  comprehending 
Assyria  and  Babylon,  with  reference  to  what  goes  before,  is  given  by  Aben 
Ezra,  Jarchi,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  Aben  Ezra  seems  indeed  to  make  this 
the  apodosis  of  the  sentence,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary.  Clericus  regards 
the  combination  of  the  cognate  noun  and  participle  (purpose  purposed)  as 
emphatic  and  implying  settled  immutable  determination.  Vitringa  explains 
purpose  and  hand  as  meaning  wisdom  and  strength  ;  Gill,  more  correctly, 
plan  and  execution.  The  outstretched  hand,  as  Knobel  observes,  is  a  ges- 
ture of  threatening.  Hitzig  gratuitously  changes  hand  to  arm,  as  in  ch. 
5 :  25.  All  the  earth  is,  with  as  little  reason,  changed  to  all  lands  by  Ge- 
senius and  all  the  later  Germans  except  Ewald. 

V.  27.  As  the  preceding  verse  declares  the  extent  of  God's  avenging 
purpose,  so  this  affirms  the  certainty  of  its  execution,  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  his  almighty  power.  For  Jehovah  of  Hosts  hath  purposed  (this), 
and  who  shall  annul  (his  purpose)  ?  And  his  hand  (is)  the  (one)  stretched 
out,  and  who  shall  turn  it  back  1 — Instead  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  Septua- 
gint  has  here  the  Holy  God  or  God  the  Holy  One.  W  has  been  variously 
translated  scatter  (LXX),  weaken  (Vulgate),  avert  (Luther),  dissolve 
(Calvin),  change  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  hinder  (Gesenius),  break  (Ewald)  ; 
but  its  true  sense  is  that  given  in  the  English  Version  (disannul)  and  by 
De  Wette  (vereiteln).  The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  is  not  simply  that 
his  hand  is  stretched  out,  as  most  writers  give  it,  but  that  the  hand  stretched 
out  is  his,  as  appears  from  the  article  prefixed  to  the  participle  mias .  (See 
Gesenius  $  108.  3.  Ewald  <§>  560).  The  true  construction  is  given  by 
Cocceius,  Lowth,  Maurer,  Henderson,  Knobel,  and  Ewald  (seine  Hand  ist 
die  ausgereckte).  Hitzig's  attempt  to  strengthen  the  last  verb  by  rendering 
it  frighten  back  (zuriickschrecken)  has  the  opposite  effect.  Ewald's  transla- 
tion (hemmen)  also  fails  to  convey  the  exact  sense  of  the  Hebrew  verb,  which 
is  correctly  given  in  the  Vulgate  (avertet),  and  still  more  precisely  by  Coc- 
ceius (retroaget).  Clericus  modernizes  the  construction  of  the  whole  verse 
(cum  consilium  ceperit  etc.),  and  Gesenius  that  of  the  second  clause  (ist 
seine  Hand  gestreckt  u.s.  w.).  Here  again  Gill  is  felicitous  in  paraphrase. 
c  There's  nothing  comes  to  pass  but  he  has  purposed,  and  every  thing  he 
has  purposed  does  come  to  pass.'  v 

V.  28.    In  the  year  of  the  death  of  king  Ahaz,  was  this  burden,  or 
threatening  prophecy,  against  Philistia.     Junius  begins  the  fifteenth  chapter 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  295 


here,  and  Calvin  says  it  would  have  begun  here,  but  for  the  preposterous 
division  or  rather  laceration  of  the  chapters.  Jerome  notes  this  as  the  first 
prophecy  belonging  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  J.  H.  Michaclis  accord- 
ingly makes  this  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  division  of  the  book.  According 
to  Cocceius's  arrangement,  it  is  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  part,  extending 
to  the  twentieth  chapter,  and  distinguished  by  the  fourfold  recurrence  of  the  title 
stes  ,  as  to  the  sense  of  which  vide  supra,  ch.  13  :  1.  Gesenius,  Hendewerk, 
and  Henderson,  suppose  the  words  of  this  verse  to  refer  to  a  period  anterior 
to  the  death  of  Ahaz,  Maurer  to  a  period  after  it.  J.  D.  Michaelis  thinks 
that  the  title  at  least  was  written  afterwards.  Hitzig  and  Knobel  regard  the 
title  as  the  work  of  a  compiler,  and  the  former  supposes  the  entire  passage 
to  have  been  reduced  to  writing  long  after  the  alleged  date  of  the  prophecy, 
while  Knobel  throws  the  whole  back  to  the  year  739,  near  the  beginning  of 
the  reign  of  Ahaz.  These  are  mere  conjectures,  which  can  have  no  weight 
against  a  title  forming  part  of  the  text  as  far  as  we  can  trace  it  back. 
One  manuscript  instead  of  Ahaz  has  Uzziah,  a  mere  emendation  intended 
to  remove  a  supposed  chronological  difficulty.  Henderson  points  out  an 
erroneous  division  of  the  text  in  some  editions  of  the  English  Bible,  by  pre- 
fixing the  paragraph  mark  to  v.  29,  so  as  to  apply  the  date  here  given  to 
what  goes  before,  whereas  the  dates  are  always  placed  at  the  beginning. 
Augusti's  translation  of  the  second  clause  (the  threatening  prophecy  was 
this)  mistakes  the  form  of  the  original,  which  can  only  mean  this  threatening 
prophecy. 

V.  29.  Rejoice  not,  O  Philistia,  all  of  thee  (or  all  Philistia),  because  the 
rod  that  smote  thee  is  broken,  for  out  of  the  root  of  the  serpent  shall  come  forth 
a  basilisk,  and  its  root  a  flying  fiery  serpent.  The  name  nwbs  is  applied  in 
Hebrew  to  the  southwestern  part  of  Canaan  on  the  Mediterranean  coast, 
nominally  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  but  for  ages  occupied  by  the 
n^niU'B  or  Philistines,  a  race  of  Egyptian  origin  who  came  to  Canaan  from 
Caphtor,  i.  e.  according  to  the  ancients  Cappadocia,  but  according  to  the 
moderns  either  Cyprus  or  Crete,  most  probably  the  latter.  The  name  is 
now  traced  to  an  Ethiopic  root  meaning  to  wander,  and  probably  denotes 
wanderers  or  emigrants.  Hence  it  is  commonly  rendered  in  the  Septuagint 
aXXoyvXot.  The  Philistines  are  spoken  of  above  in  ch.  9:  1 1.  1 1 :  14,  and 
throughout  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  hereditary  ene- 
mies of  Israel.  They  were  subdued  by  David  (2  Sam.  5 :  17-25.  21 :  15), 
and  still  paid  tribute  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chron.  17:  11),  but 
rebelled  against  Jehoram  (2  Chr.  21 :  16,  17),  were  again  subdued  by 
Uzziah  (2  Chr.  26 :  6),  and  again  shook  off  the  yoke  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz 
(2  Chr.  28:  18).  The  Greek  name  IlaXaiCTirrj,  a  corruption  of  hb^d  ,  is 
applied  by  Josephus  and  other  ancient  writers  to  the  whole  land  of  Is- 


296  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

rael,  from  which  comes  our  Palestine,   employed  in    the   same   manner 
The  expression  ^3  is  explained  by  Lowth   to   mean   with  one  consent, 
while  Henderson  connects  it  with  the  negative  in  this  sense,  let  not  any 
part  of  thee.      Most  writers   make  it  simply    mean   the   whole  of  thee, 
perhaps   with  reference    to  Philistia   as  a  union  of  several  principalities. 
All  interpreters  agree  that  the  Philistines  are  here   spoken  of  as  having 
recently  escaped    from   the   ascendency  of  some  superior  power,   but   at 
the  same  time  threatened  with  a  more  complete  subjection.     The  first  of 
these  ideas  is  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a  broken  rod  or  staff,  for  the 
meaning  of  which   vide  supra  ad  v.  5.     The  other  is  expressed  by  the 
very   different  figure  of  an   ordinary  serpent  producing  or  succeeded  by 
other  varieties  more  venomous  and  deadly.     On  the  natural  history  of  the 
passage,  see  the  Hebrew  Lexicons,  Bochart's  Hierozoicon,  and  Rosenmuller's 
Alterthumskunde.     Whatever  be  the  particular  species  intended,  the  essen- 
tial idea  is  the  same,  and  has  never  been  disputed.     Some  indeed  suppose 
a  gradation  or  climax  in  the  third  term  also,  the  fiery  flying  serpent  being 
supposed  to  be  more  deadly  than  the  basilisk,  as  this  is  more  so  than  the  ordi- 
nary serpent.     But  most  writers  refer  the  suffix  in  "PiB  to  mm ,  and  regard 
the  other  two  names  as  correlative  or  parallel.     The  transition  in  the  last 
clause  from  the  figure  of  an  animal  to  that  of  a  plant  may  serve  the  double 
purpose  of  reminding  us  that  what  we  read  is  figurative,  and  of  showing 
how  unsafe  it  is  to  tamper  with  the  text  on  the  ground  of  mere  rhetorical 
punctilios.     As  to  the  application  of  the  figures,  there  are  several  different 
opinions.    Jerome  and  a  long  line  of  interpreters,  including  Hendewerk,  sup- 
pose the  broken  staff  to  be  the  death  of  Ahaz.     But  he,  so  far  from  having 
smitten  the  Philistines,  had  been  smitten  by  them.     Kimchi,  Abarbenel, 
Vitringa,  and  others  understand  the  first  clause  as  referring  to  the  death  of 
Uzziah.    But  this  had  taken  place  more  than  thirty  years  before.     Vitringa 
endeavours  to  remove  this  difficulty  by  supposing  an  ellipsis  :  rejoice  not 
in  the  death  of  him  who  smote  you,  and  in  the  prosperity  which  you  have 
since  enjoyed  for  many  years.    But  this  is  wholly  arbitrary.    Others  suppose 
Tiglath-pileser  to  be  meant  by  the  rod  which  smote  them  ;  but  for  this  there 
is  no  sufficient  ground  in  history.     Gesenius  applies  the  figures  not  to  an 
individual  but  to  the  Jewish  power,  which  had  been  broken  and  reduced 
during  the  reign  of  Ahaz.     The  still  more  formidable  domination  threatened 
in  the  last  clause  he  explains,  not  with  the  older  writers  to  be  that  of  Heze- 
kiah  (2  Kings  18:  18),  but  the  recovered  strength  of  Judah.     Hitzig  and 
Ewald  make  the  last  clause  a  prediction  of  Assyrian   invasion.     Knobel 
adopts  the  same  interpretation,  but  with  this  addition,  that  he  understands 
the  figure  of  the  basilisk  coming  forth  from  the  serpent  as  referring  to  the 
agency  of  Judah  in  procuring  the  Assyrian  invasion  of  Philistia.     Rosen- 
miiller  refers  this  clause  to  the  Messiah,  in  which  he  follows  the  Chaldee 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  297 

paraphrase.    *  From  among  the  sons  of  the  sons  of  Jesse,  the  Messiah  shall 
come  forth,  and  his  works  shall  be  among  you  as  fiery  serpents.'     Some  of 
the  old  writers  suppose  mm  to  contain  an  allusion  to  one  of  the  names  of 
Jesse  (2  Sam.  17:25). 

V.  30.  And  the  first-born  of  the  poor  shall  feed,  and  the  needy  in 
security  lie  down,  and  I  will  kill  thy  root  with  famine,  and  thy  remnant  it 
shall  slay.  The  future  condition  of  the  Jews  is  here  contrasted  with  that  of 
the  Philistines.  The  figures  in  the  first  clause  are  borrowed  from  a  flock,  in 
the  second  from  a  tree,  but  with  obvious  allusion  to  a  human  subject.  The 
first-born  of  the  poor  is  explained  by  the  Targum  and  the  Rabbins  to  mean 
the  nobles  of  Judah,  now  despised  by  the  Philistines.  Calvin  makes  it  a 
superlative  expression  for  the  poorest  and  most  wretched  (quasi  suis  miseriis 
insignes),  and  this  sense  is  approved  by  most  of  the  later  writers,  some  of 
whom  refer  to  Job  18 :  13  for  an  analogous  expression.  Gesenius,  however, 
is  disposed  to  admit  an  allusion  to  the  next  generation,  which  would  make 
the  promise  too  remote,  and  leaves  the  expression  first-born  unexplained. 
Some  writers  needlessly  amend  the  text.  Thus  J.  D.  Michaelis  makes  the 
S  in  "naa  a  preposition  and  reads  in  my  pastures,  a  conjecture  recently  re- 
newed by  Ewald,  who  would  point  the  word  "nba  and  make  li  a  syno- 
nyme  of  "O.  But  an  exposition  which  involves  a  change  of  text  and  the 
invention  of  a  word  to  suit  the  place,  and  both  without  necessity,  seems 
to  have  a  twofold  claim  to  be  rejected.  Equally  gratuitous  is  Lowth's 
reading  'nsa ,  my  choice  first-fruits.  Gesenius  and  De  Wette  supply  nas^ 
in  the  first  clause  from  the  second,  shall  feed,  quietly.  But  the  threat  of 
famine  in  the  other  clause  seems  to  show  that  the  prominent  idea  is  abun- 
dance, as  expressed  by  the  older  writers.  There  is  no  need  of  taking 
root  in  the  sense  of  stock  or  race.  The  figurativ.e  part  of  the  last  clause  is 
borrowed  from  a  tree,  here  divided  into  two  parts,  the  root  and  the  rest  or 
remainder.  Gesenius  distinguishes  between  fcwan  and  nn  as  terms  which 
usage  has  appropriated  to  the  act  of  God  and  man  respectively.  Hitzig 
makes  the  one  mean  kill  in  general,  and  the  other  more  specifically  kill  with 
the  sword  (Jer.  15:  3).  The  third  person  aim  is  by  some  regarded  as  a 
mere  enallage  personae,  and  referred  like  ^rich  to  God  himself.  Others 
refer  it  to  the  enemy  mentioned  in  v.  31,  or  the  fiery  serpent  in  v.  30. 
Others  prefer  an  indefinite  construction,  which  is  very  common,  and  would 
here  be  entitled  to  the  preference,  were  there  not  another  still  more  simple. 
This  makes  ss-i  the  subject  of  the  last  verb,  so  that  what  is  first  mentioned 
as  an  instrument  in  God's  hand,  reappears  in  the  last  member  of  the  sentence 
as  an  agent. 

V.  31.    Howl,  oh  gate!  cry,  oh  city!  dissolved,  oh  Philisiia,  is  the 
whole  of  thee  ;  for  out  of  the  north  a  smoke  comes,  and  there  is  no  straggler 


298  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV. 

in  his  forces.  The  Philistines  are  not  only  forbidden  to  rejoice,  but  exhorted 
to  lament.  The  object  of  address  is  a  single  city  representing  all  the  rest. 
There  is  no  ground  for  the  opinion  that  Ashdod  is  particularly  meant.  It 
is  rather  a  case  of  poetical  individualization.  Gate  is  not  here  put  for  the 
judges  or  nobles  who  were  wont  to  sit  there — nor  is  it  even  mentioned  as 
the  chief  place  of  concourse — but  rather  with  allusion  to  the  defences  of  the 
city,  as  a  parallel  expression  to  city  itself.  The  insertion  of  a  preposition 
by  the  Targum  and  Kimchi — howl  for  the  gate,  cry  for  the  city — is  entirely 
unauthorized,  and  changes  the  whole  meaning.  The  masculine  form  Si^a 
seems  to  have  greatly  perplexed  interpreters.  Some  of  the  older  writers 
supply  ©nt,  others  C2>,  and  even  Ewald  says  that  we  must  be  content  to 
make  it  an  infinitive.  Knobel  regards  it  as  a  mere  anomaly  or  idiomatic 
license  of  construction.  Hitzig  supposes  a  sudden  transition  from  the  third 
to  the  second  person — it  is  dissolved,  oh  whole  Philistia.  The  true  solution 
is  that  JriM  agrees  regularly  with  Vs  in  *$*.  This  explanation,  which  Hen- 
dewerk  admits  to  be  as  old  as  Maurer,  is  distinctly  given  by  Cocceius  (lique- 
factum  est,  Palaestina,  universum  tui),  and  copied  by  Vitringa  and  J.  H. 
Michaelis.  Another  idea  ascribed  to  Maurer  by  Knobel — viz.  that  the 
smoke  here  meant  is  that  of  conflagrations  kindled  by  the  enemy — is  at  least 
as  old  as  Clericus.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understood  it  simply  as  an 
emblem  for  wrath  or  trouble.  Lowth  cites  Virgil's  fumantes  pulvere  campos, 
and  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  clouds  of  dust  raised  by  an  army  on  the 
march.  This  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller,  Hendewerk,  and  others  ; 
but  Hitzig  and  Knobel  object  to  this  interpretation  of  "J^,  as  unauthorized 
by  Hebrew  usage.  Hitzig  refers  it  to  the  practice  of  literally  carrying  fire 
in  front  of  caravans  to  mark  the  course  ;  but  this  is  objected  to  by  others  as 
peculiar  to  the  desert  and  to  straggling  or  divided  bodies.  It  may  be  doubt- 
ed, notwithstanding  the  allusion  in  the  last  clause,  whether  )W9  was  intended 
to  refer  to  an  army  at  all.  If  not,  we  may  suppose  with  Calvin  that  smoke  is 
mentioned  merely  as  a  sign  of  distant  and  approaching  fire,  a  natural  and  com- 
mon metaphor  for  any  powerful  destroying  agent. — *vv\&  has  been  conjecturally 
explained  in  various  ways,  but  is  agreed  by  all  the  modern  writers  to  mean 
properly  alone  or  separated,  and  to  be  descriptive  of  the  enemy  with  which 
Philistia  is  here  threatened.  Some  give  to  i^sia  the  sense  of  the  cognate 
fii^is-.s,  viz.  appointed  times,  and  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  orders 
under  which  the  invading  army  acts.  Most  writers  now,  however,  give  it 
another  sense  of  ernyra,  viz.  assemblies,  here  applied  specifically  to  an  army. 
Thus  understood,  the  clause  is  descriptive  of  a  compact,  disciplined,  and 
energetic  host.  A  similar  description  we  have  had  already  in  ch.  5  :  26-29, 
from  which  resemblance  some  infer  that  this  passage  must  relate  to  the  As- 
syrians. Aben  Ezra  refers  it  to  the  Babylonians  under  Nebuchadnezzar, 
Kimchi  to  the  Jews  under  Hezekiah,  and  Cocceius  to  the  Romans  as  the  final 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIV.  299 

conquerors  of  whole  Palestina,  by  which  he  understands  the  whole  of  what 
we  now  call  Palestine,  or  at  least  Judea.  Vitringa,  who  usually  quotes  the 
strangest  notions  of  Cocceius  with  indulgent  deference,  appears  to  lose  his 
patience  at  this  point,  and  exclaims,  '  hanc  ego  interpretationem  totam  suo 
relinquam  loco,  nee  ejus  amplius  rneminero ;  est  enim  plane  paradoxa  et  a 
communi  sensu  aliena.'  The  diversity  of  judgments  as  to  the  particular 
enemy  here  meant,  and  the  slightness  of  the  grounds  on  which  they  severally 
rest,  may  suffice  to  show  that  the  prophecy  is  really  generic,  not  specific, 
and  includes  all  the  agencies  and  means  by  which  the  Philistines  were  pun- 
ished for  their  constant  and  inveterate  enmity  to  the  chosen  people,  as  well 
as  for  idolatry  and  other  crimes. 

V.  32.  And  what  shall  one  answer  (what  answer  shall  be  given  to)  the 
ambassadors  of  a  nation  1  That  Jehovah  has  founded  Zion,  and  in  it  the 
afflicted  of  his  people  shall  seek  refuge.  The  meaning  of  the  last  clause  is 
too  clear  to  be  disputed,  viz.  that  God  is  the  protector  of  his  people.  This  is 
evidently  stated  as  the  result  and  sum  of  the  whole  prophecy,  and  as  such  is 
sufficiently  intelligible.  It  is  also  given,  however,  as  an  answer  to  ambas- 
sadors or  messengers,  and  this  has  given  rise  to  a  great  diversity  of  explana- 
tions. Instead  of  ambassadors  (tx^)  kings  (^sVo)  is  given  by  all  the  old  Greek 
versions  except  Symmachus  who  has  ayytlotg.  The  older  writers  for  the 
most  part  make  ambassadors  the  subject  of  the  verb — what  will  the  ambas- 
sadors answer  1  Thus  understood  the  words  have  been  applied  to  the 
report  carried  back  by  the  ambassadors  of  friendly  powers,  or  by  those  sent 
out  by  the  Jews  themselves,  on  the  occasion  of  Hezekiah's  victory  over  the 
Philistines,  or  of  his  delivery  from  the  Assyrian  invasion.  In  order  to  avoid 
the  irregularity  of  giving  ?ii  a  plural  meaning,  some  have  supposed  the  sen- 
tence to  relate  to  the  report  carried  back  by  a  Philistine  embassy,  sent  to 
ascertain  the  condition  of  Jerusalem  after  the  Assyrian  attack.  The  irregu- 
lar concord  of  the  plural  noun  with  •'sxba  was  explained  by  supplying  a 
distributive  pronoun,  every  one  of  the  ambassadors,  a  form  of  speech  quite 
foreign  to  the  Hebrew  language.  Hendewerk,  who  retains  this  old  construc- 
tion, understands  this  as  the  answer  of  the  Assyrian  ambassadors,  when 
asked  by  the  Philistines  to  attack  Jerusalem.  It  is  now  commonly  agreed, 
however,  that  *U  laxbs  is  the  object  of  the  verb,  which  is  repeatedly  con- 
strued with  a  noun  directly,  and  that  its  subject  is  either  Hezekiah  or  more 
probably  indefinite.  As  to  ■*»»,  some  still  give  it  a  collective  meaning ;  others 
refer  it  to  the  Philistines,  suing  for  peace,  or  proposing  a  joint  resistance  to 
Assyria ;  others  to  Judah  itself,  an  application  contrary  to  usage.  All  this 
seems  to  show  that  the  expression  is  indefinite,  as  the  very  absence  of  the 
article  implies,  and  that  the  whole  sense  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  this,  that 
such  may  be  the  answer  given  to  the  inquiries  made  from  any  quarter.     Of 


300  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV,  XVI. 

all  the  specific  applications,  the  most  probable  is  that  which  supposes  an 
allusion  to  Rabshakeh's  argument  with  Hezekiah  against  trusting  in  Jehovah. 
But  this  seems  precluded  by  the  want  of  any  natural  connexion  with  Philis- 
tia,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  previous  context.  I  shall  only  add,  that 
Cocceius  is  not  only  true  to  his  original  hypothesis,  but  so  far  carried  away 
by  it  as  to  lay  aside  his  usual  grammatical  precision  (which  often  contrasts 
strangely  with  his  exegesis)  and  translate  h32^  as  a  preterite.  He  understands 
the  verse  as  accounting  for  the  ruin  of  the  Jews  by  the  reception  which  they 
give  to  the  apostles  of  Christ.  What  answer  was  given  to  the  messengers  of 
the  nation  (i.  e.  the  messengers  sent  to  them)  when  Jehovah  founded  Zion 
(or  the  Christian  church)  and  the  afflicted  of  his  people  sought  refuge  in  it  ? 
The  same  sense  might  have  been  as  well  attained  without  departing  from  the 
strict  sense  of  the  future.  As  to  the  sense  itself,  it  needs  no  comment  to 
evince  that  it  is  purely  arbitrary,  and  that  a  hundred  other  meanings  might 
be  just  as  well  imposed  upon  the  words. 


CHAPTERS  XV,  XVI. 

These  chapters  contain  a  prediction  of  the  downfall  of  Moab.  Most 
of  the  recent  German  writers  deny  that  any  part  of  it  was  written  by  Isaiah, 
except  the  last  two  verses  of  ch.  XVI,  which  they  suppose  him  to  have 
added  as  a  postscript  to  an  older  prophecy.  The  reasons  for  ascribing  the 
remainder  of  the  passage  to  another  writer  are  derived  from  minute  pecu- 
liarities of  phraseology,  and  from  the  general  character  and  tone  of  the 
whole  composition.  Hitzig  regards  this  as  the  prophecy  of  Jonah  men- 
tioned in  2  Kings  14:  25.  In  this  conclusion  Maurer  acquiesces,  and 
Knobel  thinks  it  not  improbable.  The  grounds  on  which  such  hypotheses 
must  be  rejected,  when  not  only  destitute  of  external  evidence  but  contra- 
dicted by  it,  have  been  already  stated  in  the  general  introduction.  Hende- 
werk  combats  Hitzig's  doctrine  on  his  own  ground  and  with  his  own  wea- 
pons, deducing  from  the  verbal  minutiae  of  the  passage  proofs  of  its  poetical 
excellence  and  of  its  genuineness.  Some  of  the  older  writers  regard  the 
last  two  verses  of  ch.  XVI  as  an  addition  made  by  Isaiah  to  an  earlier  pre- 
diction of  his  own.  Henderson  thinks  them  an  addition  made  to  a  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  by  a  later  prophet.  If  we  set  aside  the  alleged  internal  evidence 
of  a  different  origin,  the  simplest  view  of  the  passage  is  that  which  regards 
the  whole  as  a  continuous  composition,  and  supposes  the  Prophet  at  the 
close  to  fix  the  date  of  the  prediction  which  he  had  just  uttered.     The  par- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV.  .'H)l 


ticular  event  referred  to  in  these  chapters  has  been  variously  explained  to 
be  the  invasion  of  Moab  by  Jeroboam  II.  king  of  Israel,  by  Tirhaka  king 
of  Ethiopia,  by  Tiglath-Pileser  king  of  Assyria,  by  his  successors  Shalma- 
neser,  Sennacherib,  and  Esarhaddon,  by  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon 
etc.  The  safest  conclusion  seems  to  be,  that  the  prediction  is  generic  and 
intended  to  describe  the  destruction  of  Moab,  without  exclusive  reference  to 
any  one  of  the  events  by  which  it  was  occasioned  or  promoted,  but  with 
special  allusions  possibly  to  all  of  them.  Compare  the  introduction  to  ch. 
XIII — XIV.  According  to  Cocceius,  the  Moab  of  this  prophecy  is  Israel, 
the  hostile  power  Rome,  and  the  time  that  of  the  downfall  of  Jerusalem. 
To  such  hypotheses  the  answer  still  is,  that  they  might  be  indefinitely  multi- 
plied and  varied,  with  as  much  or  rather  with  as  little  reason. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

This  chapter  is  occupied  with  a  description  of  the  general  grief,  occa- 
sioned by  the  conquest  of  the  chief  towns  and  the  desolation  of  the  country 
at  large.  Its  chief  peculiarities  of  form  are  the  numerous  names  of  places 
introduced,  and  the  strong  personification  by  which  they  are  represented  as 
grieving  for  the  public  calamity.  The  chapter  closes  with  an  intimation  of 
still  greater  evils. 

V.  1.  (This  is)  the  burden  of  Moab,  that  in  a  night  Ar-Moab  is  laid 
waste,  is  destroyed ;  that  in  a  night  Kir-Moab  is  laid  waste,  is  destroyed. 
The  English  Version,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Hitzig,  understand  the  first  verse  as 
assigning  a  reason  for  the  second.  Because  in  a  night  etc.  he  ascends  etc. 
But  so  long  a  sentence  is  at  variance,  not  only  with  the  general  usage  of  the 
language,  but  with  the  style  of  this  particular  prophecy.  Gesenius  supposes 
an  ellipsis  at  the  beginning,  and  takes  ^  in  its  usual  sense  of  that.  '  (I 
affirm)  that  etc.'  The  same  construction  occurs  where  a  verb  of  swearing 
is  understood  (7:  9.  49:  18.)  In  the  absence  of  the  governing  verb,  the 
particle  may  be  translated  surely.  Most  of  the  recent  German  versions 
render  it  by  yea  (ja !).  In  a  night  may  be  literally  understood,  as  assaults 
are  often  made  by  night  (ch.  21 :  4),  or  figuratively,  as  the  phrase  is 
sometimes  used  to  denote  sudden  destruction.  Ar  originally  meant  a  city, 
and  Ar-Moab  the  city  of  Moab,  i.  e.  the  capital  city,  or  as  Gesenius  says 
the  only  real  city  of  the  Moabites.     It  was  on  the  south  side  of  the  Arnon 


302  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV. 


(Num.  22:  36).  The  Greeks  called  it  Areopolis  or  City  of  Mars,  accord- 
ing to  their  favourite  practice  of  corrupting  foreign  names  so  as  to  give  them 
the  appearance  of  significant  Greek  wor:'s.  Ptolemy  calls  it  Rhabmath- 
mom,  a  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  Rabbath-Moab  i.  e.  chief  city  of  Moab. 
Jerome  says  that  the  place  was  destroyed  in  one  night  by  an  earthquake 
when  he  was  a  boy.  The  Arabs  call  it  Mab  and  Err  abba.  It  is  now  in 
ruins.  In  connexion  with  the  capital  city,  the  Prophet  names  the  principal 
or  only  fortress  in  the  land  of  Moab.  Kir  originally  means  a  wall,  then  a 
walled  town  or  fortress.  The  place  here  meant  is  a  few  miles  south-east  of 
Ar,  on  a  rocky  hill,  strongly  fortified  by  nature,  and  provided  with  a  castle. 
The  Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  this  verse  calls  it  Kerakka  de  Moab,  the  fortress 
of  Moab,  which  name  it  has  retained  among  the  orientals  who  extend  it  to 
the  whole  of  ancient  Moab. 

V.  2.  The  destruction  of  the  chief  cities  causes  general  grief.  They 
(indefinitely)  go  up  to  the  house  (i.  e.  the  temple),  and  Dibon  (to)  the  high 
places  for  (the  purpose  of)  weeping.  On  Nebo  and  on  Medeba,  Moab 
howls — on  all  his  heads  baldness — every  beard  cut  off.  Luther,  Gesenius, 
and  others,  make  the  verb  indefinite.  Lowth,  Rosenmuller,  Hitzig,  and 
Maurer,  regard  Moab  as  the  subject.  Vitringa  makes  n^s  a  contracted 
proper  name  for  Bethmeon  (Jer.  48  :  23)  or  Beth-baal-meon  (Josh.  13  :  19), 
on  the  south  side  of  the  Arnon,  now  called  Maein.  Ewald  makes  it  a  con- 
traction of  oinbm  ma  (Jer.  48 :  22),  which  was  not  far  from  Dibon  (Num. 
33:  46).  The  same  explanation  was  once  approved  by  Rosenmuller,  but 
in  the  Compendium  of  his  Scholia,  he  adopts  the  opinion  of  Kimchi,  that 
nhn  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  temple,  and  is  equivalent  to  wipn  which 
occurs  below  (16:  12)  as  a  parallel  to  maa.  The  ancient  heathen  built 
their  temples  upon  heights  (ch.  65:1).  Solomon  built  one  to  the  Moabitish 
god  Chemosh  on  the  mountain  before  Jerusalem  (1  Kings  11:  1).  This 
explanation  is  approved  by  Gesenius  and  all  the  later  Germans  except 
Ewald.  Some  who  take  n^n  as  a  proper  name,  make  fiiaa  one  also, 
regarding  it  as  a  contracted  form  of  Bamoth-baal  (Josh.  13 :  17).  Dibon, 
a  town  north  of  the  Arnon,  rebuilt  by  the  tribe  of  Gad,  and  thence  called 
Dibon-gad  (Num.  33 :  45),  although  it  had  formerly  belonged  to  Moab, 
and  would  seem  from  this  passage  to  have  been  recovered  by  them.  The 
same  place  is  called  Dimon  in  v.  9,  in  order  to  assimilate  it  to  ffi  blood. 
The  modern  name  is  Diban.  There  is  no  preposition  before  n^a  and  yaH 
in  Hebrew.  Hence  the  latter  may  be  taken  either  as  the  object  or  the  sub- 
ject of  the  verb.  The  first  construction  is  preferred  by  the  older  writers  ; 
those  of  modern  date  are  almost  unanimous  in  favour  of  the  other,  which 
makes  Dibon  itself  go  up  to  the  high  places.  The  only  objection  is  that 
the  writer  would  hardly  have  coupled  this  one  place  with  the  country  at 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV.  303 

large,  and  this  is  not  sufficient  to  exclude  it.  The  objection  to  the  other  is 
that  Dibon  was  situated  in  a  plain,  to  which  it  may  be  answered  that  the 
phrase  go  up  has  reference  in  many  cases  not  to  geographical  position  but 
to  sacredness  and  dignity. 

V.  3.  In  its  streets,  they  are  girded  with  sackcloth ;  on  its  roofs  and 
in  its  squares  (or  broad  places)  all  (literally,  all  of  it)  howls,  coming  down 
with  weeping  (from  the  house-tops  or  the  temples).  In  this  verse  there  is 
a  singular  alternation  of  masculine  and  feminine  suffixes,  all  relating  to 
Moab,  sometimes  considered  as  a  country  and  sometimes  as  a  nation.  The 
last  clause  is  explained  by  most  modern  writers,  to  mean  melting  into  tears, 
as  the  eye  is  elsewhere  said  to  run  down  tears  or  water  (Jer.  9:  17.  Lam. 
3:  48).  But  as  the  eye  is  not  here  mentioned,  and  the  preposition  is  in- 
serted, making  a  marked  difference  between  this  and  the  alleged  expressions, 
it  is  better  to  adhere  to  the  old  construction  which  supposes  an  antithesis 
between  this  clause  and  the  ascent  to  the  temples  or  the  house-tops.  Sack- 
cloth is  mentioned  as  the  usual  mourning  dress  and  badge  of  deep  humi- 
liation. 

V.  4.  And  Heshbon  cries  and  Elealeh — even  to  Jahaz  is  their  voice 
heard — therefore  the  warriors  of  Moab  cry — his  soul  is  distressed  to  him 
(or  in  him).  Heshbon,  a  royal  city  of  the  Amorites,  assigned  to  Reuben 
and  to  Gad  at  different  times,  or  to  both  jointly,  famous  for  its  fish-pools,  a 
celebrated  town  in  the  days  of  Eusebius,  the  ruins  of  which  are  still  in  exist- 
ence under  the  slightly  altered  name  of  Hesbdn.  Elealeh,  often  mentioned 
with  it,  was  also  assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Reuben.  Eusebius  describes  these 
towns  as  near  together  in  the  highlands  of  Gilead,  opposite  to  Jericho. 
Robinson  and  Smith,  while  at  the  latter  place,  conversed  with  an  Arab 
chief,  who  pointed  out  to  them  the  Wady  Hesban,  near  which  far  up  in  the 
mountain  is  the  ruined  place  of  the  same  name,  the  ancient  Heshbon.  Half 
an  hour  north-east  of  this  lies  another  ruin  called  El  Al,  the  ancient  Elealeh. 
(Palestine  II.  278.)  The  names  ytv*  and  *"«srp  are  treated  by  Gesenius 
as  identical,  but  Hitzig  understands  them  to  denote  two  different  places, 
one  described  by  Jerome  as  overhanging  the  Dead  Sea,  the  other  further  to 
the  south-east  on  the  edge  of  the  desert,  the  scene  of  the  battle  between 
Sihon  and  Israel.  In  either  case,  the  preposition  seems  to  imply  that  the 
place  meant  was  a  frontier  town.  The  same  form  of  expression  that  is  here 
used  occurs  also  ch.  10:  30. — Vitringa  and  Gesenius  give  |1^?  the  rare 
and  doubtful  sense  because,  and  understand  the  Prophet  to  describe  the 
cities  or  people  in  general  as  lamenting  because  even  the  warriors  were  dis- 
mayed. Most  writers  give  the  words  their  usual  meaning,  and  suppose  the 
terror  of  the  warriors  to  be  here  described  as  the  effect  not  the  cause  of 


304  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV. 

the  general  lamentation.  According  to  Knobel,  therefore  has  reference  to 
the  cry  of  Heshbon  and  Elealeh  which  had  just  been  mentioned  ;  according 
to  Hitzig  and  others,  to  the  downfall  of  the  capital  (v.  1).  For  *$Vfj  the 
Septuagint  seems  to  have  read  ^H,  which  it  renders  r\  oacpvg.  This  read- 
ing and  translation,  which  is  also  favoured  by  the  Peshito,  is  adopted  by 
Lowth  :  the  very  loins  of  Mo  ah  cry  out.  Other  interpreters  agree  that  it  is 
the  passive  participle  of  ybn,  used  as  a  noun  in  the  sense  of  warriors  or 
heroes,  whether  so  called  because  drawn  out  for  military  service,  or  as  being 
strong,  or  girded  and  equipped,  or  disencumbered  of  unnecessary  clothing. 
Aquila  has  £$w^of,.with  the  arms  or  shoulders  bare.  There  is  peculiar  sig- 
nificance in  thus  ascribing  an  unmanly  terror  to  the  very  defenders  of  the 
country.  Vitringa  supposes  an  additional  emphasis  in  the  use  of  the  verb 
Ji3>i")"',  which  may  either  mean  a  joyful  or  a  mournful  cry,  and  by  itself  might 
here  denote  a  battle-cry  or  war-shout.  As  if  he  had  said,  the  warriors  of 
Moab  raise  a  cry,  not  of  battle  or  defiance,  but  of  grief  and  terror.  The 
same  natural  expression  of  distress  is  ascribed  by  Homer  to  his  heroes.  (Vide 
infra,  ch.  33  :  7.) — Cocceius  is  singular  in  making  this  an  exhortation :  let 
them  raise  the  war-cry  (vociferentur,  classicum  canant,  barritum  faciant, 
clamorem  tollant,  ut  in  praelio).  For  PfiPP  the  Septuagint  reads  iis>T>  (jvw- 
getcu),  probably  a  mere  inadvertence.  The  English  Version  and  Lowth 
take  ©S3  in  the  sense  of  life,  other  interpreters  in  that  of  soul.  Rosen- 
miiller,  Gesenius,  and  Ewald,  give  to  tlPi*  the  sense  of  trembling,  from  a 
kindred  root  in  Arabic  ;  others  with  more  probability  that  of  being  evil,  i.  e. 
ill  at  ease  or  suffering,  in  which  the  future  corresponding  to  this  preterite  is 
frequently  used  elsewhere.  Gesenius  indeed  refers  that  future  to  another 
root,  but  one  of  kindred  origin,  in  which  the  essential  idea  is  probably  the 
same.  The  paronomasia  in  isn-n  and  ns-n  is  copied  in  Gesenius's  trans- 
lation by  combining  the  words  Tclagen  and  verzaget.  The  similar  terms 
are  confounded  by  the  Vulgate  (ululabit  sibi),  and  by  Calvin,  who  under- 
stands the  sense  to  be,  that  every  one  will  be  so  occupied  with  his  own  grief 
as  to  disregard  that  of  his  neighbours. 

V.  5.  My  heart  for  Moab  cries  out — her  fugitives  (are  fled)  as  far  as 
Zoar — an  heifer  of  three  years  old — for  he  that  goes  up  Luhith  with  weep- 
ing goes  up  by  it — for  in  the  way  of  Horonaim  a  cry  of  destruction  they 
lift  up.  Every  part  of  this  obscure  verse  has  given  rise  to  some  diversity 
of  exposition.  It  has  been  made  a  question  whose  words  it  contains.  Junius 
connects  it  with  the  close  of  the  preceding  verse  and  understands  it  to  con- 
tain the  words  of  the  warriors  there  mentioned,  endeavouring  to  rally  and 
recall  the  fugitives.  Others  suppose  the  Moabites  in  general,  or  some  indi- 
vidual among  them,  to  be  here  the  speaker.  Cocceius  doubts  whether  these 
are  not  the  words  of  God  himself.     Calvin  supposes  the  Prophet  to  be 


ISAIAH,  CIIA1'.  XV.  305 

speaking  in  the  person  and  expressing  the  feelings  of  a  Moabite.     All  these 
hypotheses  appear  to  lun  n  from   an   Idea  that  tin;  Prophet  cannot  be 

supposed  to  express  sympathy  with  these  sinners  of  the  gentiles.     But  such 
expressions  are  not  only  common  elsewhere,  but  particularly  frequent  in  this 
part  of  Isaiah.  (Vide  infra  ch.  16  :  11*  91:  3,  4.  22:  5.)     Hitzig  suggests, 
as  a  possible   but  not  as   a  probable  construction  of  the  first  words,  My 
heart  (is)  towards  Moab  (who)  is  crying  etc.  as   in  Judges  5 :  9.     Some 
older  writers  understand  the  words  to  mean  my  heart  cries  to  Moab,  as  in 
1  Chron.  5 :  20.     Gesenius  gratuitously  cites  other  cases  in  which  b  has  the 
sense  of  for,  on  account  of,  given  to  it  here  by  Aben  Ezra  (:kie  Tern). 
The  particle  is  here  used  in  its  proper  sense  as  indicating  general  relation, 
as  to,  with  respect  to,  and  simply  points  out  Moab  as  the  subject  or  occa- 
sion of  the  cry.    Ewald  and  others  make  psr  mean  to  complain  or  lament, 
which  is  neither  so  exact  nor  so  expressive  as  the  literal  translation. — Instead 
of  my  heart  some  read  his  heart,  others  simply  heart.     Thus  Lowth :   the 
heart  of  Moab  crieth  in  her,  after  the  Septuagint  («V  airy).     The  Peshito 
seems  to  have  read  im-ia  in  his  spirit.     The  common  text  itself  is  variously 
explained.     According  to  the   usual  analogy,  it  means  her  bars,  and  the 
Vulgate  accordingly  has  vectes  ejus.     By  this  some  understand  the  cities  of 
Moab,  others  its  barriers  or  frontier  posts,  others  its  guardians  or  protectors. 
Most  of  the  modern  writers  follow  Saadias  and  Kimchi,  who  explain  the 
word  to  mean   her  fugitives.     The  only  objection  to  this   explanation  is- 
the  absence  of  the  long  vowel   under  the  first  letter. — Zoar,  one  of  the 
cities    of  the  plain,  preserved  by   Lot's  intercession,  is  now  ascertained 
to  have  been  situated  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  at  the  foot  of 
the  mountains  near  its  southern  extremity.   (Robinson's  Palestine  II.  480, 
648.)     It  is  here  mentioned  as  an  extreme  southern  point,  but  not  without 
allusion,  as  Vitringa  with  great  probability  suggests,  to  Lot's  escape  from 
the  destruction  of  Sodom. — The  next   phrase  (tpvbto  nbns)  is  famous  as  the 
subject  of  discordant  explanations.     These  may  however  be  reduced  to  two 
classes,  those  which  regard  the  words  as  proper  names,  and  those  which 
regard  them  as  appellatives.     J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  two  places  to  be 
mentioned,  Eglath  and  Shelishiyyah  ;  but  of  the  latter  there  is  no  trace  in 
geography  or  history.     Doederlein   conjectures  that  the  city  Eglath  con- 
sisted of  three  towns,  and  that  the  Hebrew  n^b^   is  the  same  as  the  Greek 
TQinohg  or  triple  city.     But  the  former  nowhere  else  means  threefold,  but 
always  third.     According  to  Lightfoot,  the  phrase  means  Eglah,  or  Eglath 
the  Third,  so  called  to  distinguish  it  from  Eglaim  or  En-eglaim,  a  place  in 
the  same  region,  mentioned  in  Ezek.  47  :  10,  "  where  Eglaim  is  plainly  of 
the  dual  number  and  seems  to  intimate  that  there  were  two  Egels,  with  rela- 
tion to  which  our  Eglah  may  be  called  Eglah  the  third."   (Lightfoot's  Choro- 
graphical  Inquiry,  ch.  3,  §  8.)     With  this  may  be  compared  Ramathaim 

20 


306  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV. 

which  is  also  dual  (1  Sam.  I  :  2)  and  Upper  and  JSether  Beth-horon  (Josh. 
16 :  3,  5).  Lightfoot  compares  this  Eglah  the  Third  with  the  Nexla 
of  Ptolemy,  and  the  "Ayalla  of  Josephus,  both  mentioned  in  connexion 
with  Zoar  (Zaaoa)  and  the  latter  with  Horonaim  f&e&ai).  The  Ejlun 
(^JL^-)  of  Abulfeda,  meaning  calves  or  heifers,  may  be  another  name  for 
the  same  place,  which  must  then  have  been  situated  beyond  the  northern 
boundary  of  Moab,  and  be  mentioned  here  in  order  to  convey  the  idea  that 
the  fugitives  had  fled  in  opposite  directions.  Of  the  late  translators,  DeWette, 
Henderson  and  Ewald  retain  the  Hebrew  words  as  a  proper  name,  Eglath- 
Shelishiyah.  On  the  other  hand,  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  the  great 
majority  of  modern  writers,  regard  the  words  in  question  as  appellatives,  and 
all  agree  in  rendering  the  first  of  the  two  heifer.  The  other  is  explained 
by  Jarchi  to  mean  the  third  in  the  order  of  birth,  with  reference  to  some 
supposed  superiority  in  that  class.  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Umbreit,  under- 
stand it  to  mean  third-rate,  of  the  third  order,  i.  e.  inferior  (compare  Dan. 
5:  29.  1  Sam.  15:  9),  and  as  here  applied  to  a  heifer,  lean,  ill-favoured, 
a  figure  borrowed  from  the  pastoral  habits  of  the  people  in  that  region  to 
express  the  smallness  of  the  city  Zoar,  which  was  so  called  because  it  was 
a  little  one  (Gen.  19:  20,  22).  It  is  plain  however  that  third  can  have 
this  meaning  only  in  case  of  a  direct  comparison  with  something  of  the  first 
and  second  rank.  Besides,  what  has  the  size  of  Zoar  to  do  with  this  pathe- 
tic description  of  the  flight  of  Moab  ?  The  great  majority  of  voices  is  in 
favour  of  the  meaning  three  years  old,  or  retaining  the  form  of  the  original 
more  closely,  a  heifer  of  the  third  (year).  A  cognate  participle  (ntt^a) 
is  used  in  this  sense  and  in  connexion  with  this  very  noun  (Gen.  15:  9). 
By  a  heifer  three  years  old,  Gesenius  understands  one  that  has  never  yet 
been  tamed  or  broken,  according  to  Pliny's  maxim,  domitura  bourn  in  tri- 
matu,  postea  sera,  antea  praematura.  Now  as  personal  afflictions  are 
sometimes  likened  to  the  taming  of  animals  (Jer.  31:  18.  Hos.  10:  11), 
and  as  communities  and  governments  are  often  represented  by  the  figure  of 
a  heifer  (Jer.  46  :  20.  50 :  11.  Hos.  4  :  16),  the  expressions  thus  interpreted 
would  not  be  inappropriate  to  the  state  of  Moab,  hitherto  flourishing  and 
uncontrolled,  but  now  three  years  old  and  subjected  to  the  yoke.  Some  of 
the  older  interpreters  suppose  this  statement  of  the  age  to  have  reference  to 
the  voice  of  the  animal,  which  is  said  by  Bochart  to  be  deepest  at  that  age, 
and  according  to  Aristotle,  stronger  in  the  female  than  the  male.  There 
is  still  a  doubt,  however,  with  respect  to  the  application  of  the  simile,  as 
last  explained.  Bochart  refers  it  to  the  Prophet  himself.  '  My  heart  cries 
for  Moab  (for  her  fugitives  to  Zoar)  as  a  heifer  three  years  old.'  Vitringa 
refers  it  to  the  fugitives  of  Moab,  who  escape  to  Zoar,  crying  like  a  heifer 
three  years  old. — rt^sa  is  commonly  a  noun  denoting  an  ascent  or  rising 
ground.  It  is  translated  hill  in  the  English  version  of  1  Sam.  9  :  11,  and 
ascent  in  that  of  Num.  34  :  4  and  2  Sam.    15  :   30,  which  last  place  is 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV.  307 

strikingly  analogous  to  this.     The  construction  commonly   adopted  makes 
nbi*2  an  absolute  nominative  :  '  the  ascent  of  Luhith  (or  as  to  the  ascent  of 
Luhith)  with  weeping  one  ascends   it.'     It  is   possible  however  to   make 
nby-Q  a  participle  or  a  participial  noun — '  the  ascender  of  Luhith   (i.  e.  he 
who  ascends  it)  with  weeping  ascends  by  it.'     The    parallel  passage  (Jer. 
48  :  5)  instead  of  ia  repeats  ''sa.     This  is  regarded  by  the  latest  writers  as 
an  error  in  transcription  of  'Oa  for  ^d  "Q.     The  Septuagint  has  noog  ae  avu- 
(trjaorrat,  which  implies  still  another  reading  ("p).     It  is  a  curious  and  instruc- 
tive fact  that  J.  D.  Michaelis  corrects  the  text  of  Isaiah  by  comparison 
with  Jeremiah,  while  Lowth,  with  equal  confidence,  inverts  the  process  and 
declares  the  text  in  Jeremiah  to  be  unmeaning.     Luhith  is  mentioned  only 
here  and  in  Jeremiah  48 :  5.     Eusebius  describes  it  as  a  village  still  called 
Aovd(r,  between  Areopolis  and  Zoar,  which  Jerome  repeats  but  calls  it  Lui- 
tha.     The  article  before  mrnb  is  explained  by  Gesenius  as  having  reference 
to  the  meaning  of  the  name  as  an  appellative,  the  boarded  (town),  but  by 
Henderson  with  more  probability  as  properly  belonging  to  fibstt.     (See  Ge- 
senius <§>  109,   1.)     Horonaim  is  mentioned  only  here  and  in  Jer.  48  :  3,5, 
34.     The  name  originally  means  two  caverns,  and  is  near  akin  to  Beth-horon, 
locus  cavitatis  (Gesenius  Thes.  I.  195,  459).     As  Jeremiah   instead  of  Tf.n 
way,  has  Wha  descent,  it  is  not  improbable  that  Luhith  and  Horonaim  were  on 
opposite  faces  of  the  same  hill,  so  that  the  fugitives  on  their  way  to  Zoar, 
after  going  up  the  ascent  of  Luhith,  are  seen  going  down  the  descent  of  Ho- 
ronaim. A  cry  of  breaking  is  explained  by  some  of  the  rabbinical  interpreters 
as  meaning  the  explosive  sound  produced  by  clapping  the  hands  or  smiting 
the  thigh.    Others  understand  it  to  mean  a  cry  of  contrition,  i.  e.  a  penitent 
and  humble  cry.     Gill  suggests  that  it  may  mean  a  broken  cry,  i.  e.  one  inter- 
rupted by  sighs  and  sobs.     Gesenius  makes  it  mean  a  cry  as  of  destruction, 
i.  e.  a   loud  and  bitter  cry  ;  Knobel,  a  cry  (on  account)  of  destruction.     It 
is  possible  however  that  l*3$  may  be  mentioned  as  the  very  word  uttered, 
like  G^n  in  other  cases.    The  very  unusual  form  "nm  is  by  some  regarded  as 
a  transposition  for  1S3"H  from  3?yi.    But  the  rabbins  and  the  latest  writers  are 
agreed  that   it  is  a  derivative  of  lis.     The   former  suppose  an  anomalous 
reduplication  of  the  first  radical.    The  latter  regard  it  as  a  Pilpel  for  "nr"^  . 
either  by  error  of  transcription  or  euphonic  change.    (See  Ewald  §  237,  1 .) 
There  is  no  absurdity  in  the  conjecture  of  Cocceius   that  this  strange  form 
was  employed  here  in  allusion  to  the  names  is  and    i?"-©,   Moabitish  cities. 
Junius  supposes,  still  more  boldly,   that  the  Prophet  wishing  to  say   cry, 
instead  of  using  any  ordinary  word,  invented   the  cacophonous  one  nowr  in 
question,  as  in  keeping  with  the  context  and  the  feelings  it  expresses. 

V.  6.    For  the  xcaters  of  Nimrim  (are  and)  shall  be  desolations ;  for 
withered  is  the  grass,  gone  is  the  herbage,  verdure  there  is  none.    Accord- 


308  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV. 

ing  to  Vitringa,  this  verse  gives  a  reason  for  the  grief  described  in  v.  5  as 
prevailing  in  the  south  of  Moab.  Maurer  makes  it  an  explanation  of  the 
flight  in  that  direction.  Hendewerk  supposes  the  description  to  be  here  at 
an  end,  and  a  statement  of  the  causes  to  begin.  It  seems  more  natural, 
however,  to  suppose,  with  Ewald  and  some  older  writers,  that  the  description 
is  itself  continued,  the  desolation  of  the  country  being  added  to  the  capture 
of  the  cities  and  the  flight  of  the  inhabitants.  Aurivillius,  in  his  dissertation 
on  this  passage,  explains  d*n»3  as  an  appellative,  meaning  as  in  Arabic  clear, 
limpid  waters.  But  all  other  writers  understand  it  as  a  proper  name.  Gro- 
tius  takes  i»  in  the  sense  of  pastures,  which  it  never  has.  Lightfoot  suggests 
that  the  waters  meant  may  be  the  hot  springs  of  this  region,  mentioned  by 
Josephus,  and  perhaps  the  same  with  those  of  which  Moses  speaks  in  Gen. 
36 :  24,  according  to  the  best  interpretation  of  that  passage.  It  is  more 
probably  explained  by  Junius  as  the  name  of  streams  which  met  there  (rivo- 
rum  confluentium),  and  by  others  still  more  generally  as  denoting  both  the 
springs  and  running  streams  of  that  locality.  Junius  supplies  a  preposition 
before  waters  (ad  aquas  Nimrimorum  desolationes  erunt),  but  the  true  con- 
struction makes  it  the  subject  of  the  verb.  The  same  writer  understands 
the  plural  form  as  here  used  to  denote  the  waters  meeting  at  Nimrah  or 
Beth-nimrah.  But  it  is  now  agreed  that  Nimrim  is  another  name  for  the 
town  itself,  which  is  mentioned  in  Num.  32:  3,  36  and  Josh.  13:  27  as  a 
town  of  Gad.  Vitringa's  assumption  of  another  town  in  the  south  of  Moab 
rests  on  his  misconception  *of  the  nexus  between  this  verse  and  the  fifth. 
Bochart  derives  the  name  from  "tt}3  a  panther,  but  the  true  etymology  is  no 
doubt  that  already  mentioned.  Forerius  explains  niaUDE  as  denoting  an 
object  of  astonishment  and  horror,  but  the  common  sense  of  desolations  is 
no  doubt  the  true  one.  Most  writers  since  Vitringa  understand  the  Prophet 
as  alluding  to  the  practice  of  stopping  fountains  and  wasting  fields  in  war. 
(Compare  2  Kings  3:  19,  25.)  But  Ewald  and  others  suppose  an  al- 
lusion to  the  effects  of  drought.  This  is  a  question  which  the  Prophet's 
own  words  leave  undecided.  The  second  *s  is  translated  so  that  by  Luther, 
and  by  the  Septuagint,  because  by  the  Vulgate,  yea  by  Augusti,  while  Cal- 
vin omits  both.  The  translation  of  the  first  verb  as  a  future  and  the  others 
as  preterites  seems  to  make  the  desolation  of  the  waters  not  the  cause  but 
the  effect  of  the  decay  of  vegetation.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  adopt  the 
present  or  descriptive  form  throughout  the  verse,  as  all  the  latest  writers  do. 
•ysn  is  not  hay,  as  Luther  and  the  English  Version  give  it,  but  mature 
grass,  awn  the  springing  herbage,  pt«y  greenness  or  verdure  in  general. 
Ewald  and  Henderson  neglect  the  distinction  between  the  last  two  words. 
The  whole  is  given  with  great  precision  in  the  Vulgate:  herba,  germen, 
viror.     The  Septuagint  also  has  xoqzog  ylcogog. 


JSAIAH,  CHAP.  XV.  309 

V.  7.  Therefore  (because  the  country  can  no  longer  be  inhabited)  the 
remainder  of  what  (each)  one  has  made  (i.e.  acquired),  and  their  hoard  (or 
store),  over  the  brook  of  the  willows  they  carry  them  away.  Not  one  of  the 
ancient  versions  has  given  a  coherent  or  intelligible  rendering  of  this  obscure 
sentence.  Jerome  suggests  three  different  interpretations  of  D^n^is  ^ns ; 
first,  the  brook  of  the  Arabians  or  of  the  Ravens  (D^-p)  who  fed  Elijah  : 
then,  the  brook  of  the  willows  in  the  proper  sense  ;  and  lastly,  Babylon,  the 
plains  of  which  were  full  of  willows  (Ps.  137:  2).  The  first  of  these  is 
adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  translates  it  Rabenbach  (Ravenbrook)  ; 
the  last  by  Bochart,  Vitringa,  and  others ;  the  second  by  most  interpreters. 
A  new  interpretation  is  proposed  by  Hitzig,  viz.  brook  or  valley  of  the 
deserts,  supposed  to  be  the  same  with  the  brook  or  valley  of  the  plain  men- 
tioned Amos  6:  14.  It  is  now  commonly  agreed  that  whatever  be  the 
meaning  of  the  name,  it  denotes  the  Wady  el  Ahsa  of  Burckhardt  (the 
Wady  el  Ahsy  of  Robinson  and  Smith),  running  into  the  Dead  Sea  near  its 
southern  extremity,  and  forming  the  boundary  between  Kerek  and  Gebal, 
corresponding  to  the  ancient  Moab  and  Edom. — mrv*  may  either  mean 
what  is  left  by  the  enemy,  or  the  surplus  of  their  ordinary  gains.  The  D  in 
oixtt^  is  regarded  by  Henderson  as  the  old  termination  of  the  verb.  All 
other  writers  seem  to  look  upon  it  as  the  suffix  referring  to  rrtftfi  and  rnps, 
which  are  then  to  be  construed  as  nominatives  absolute.  The  older  writers 
make  the  enemy  the  subject  of  the  verb ;  the  moderns  the  Moabites  them- 
selves. On  the  whole,  the  most  probable  meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  the 
Moabites  shall  carry  what  they  can  save  of  their  possessions  into  the  adjacent 
land  of  Edom. — Kimchi  points  out  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative  before  ITOJ, 
precisely  similar  to  that  in  our  colloquial  English.  Clericus  coolly  inserts 
not  and  enemies  in  the  first  clause,  both  which  he  says  are  necessary  to  the 
sense. 

V.  8.  The  lamentation  is  not  confined  to  any  one  part  of  the  country. 
For  the  cry  goes  round  the  border  of  Moab  (i.  e.  entirely  surrounds  it)  ; 
even  to  Eglaim  (is)  its  howling  (heard),  and  to  Beer  Elim  its  howling. 
The  meaning,  as  Hendewerk  observes,  is  not  that  the  land  is  externally 
surrounded  by  lamentation,  but  that  lamentation  fills  it.  Vatablus  under- 
stands the  cry  here  spoken  of  to  be  the  shout  of  battle,  contrary  to  usage  and 
the  context.  Piscator  makes  cnbsx  mean  the  confluence  of  the  Anion  or 
the  streams  that  form  it,  called  "pnx  c^n:n  in  Num.  21 :  14,  and  connected 
there  with  Beer.  All  others  understand  it  as  the  name  of  a  town.  Rosen- 
miiller  and  Gesenius  identify  it  with  the  '/lyaXhi'n  of  Eusebius,  eight  miles 
south  of  Areopolis,  and  not  far  from  the  southern  boundary  of  Moab.  Jose- 
phus  also  mentions  "AyaXka.  in  connexion  with  Zoar.  As  these,  however, 
must  have  been  within  the  Moabitish  territory,  Hitzig  and  the  later  German 


310  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV. 

writers  make  Eglaim  the  same  with  En-eglaim  (Ezek.  47  :  10).  The  dif- 
ferent orthography  of  the  two  names  is  noticed  by  none  of  these  interpreters  ; 
and  Henderson,  who  adopts  the  same  opinion,  merely  says  that  "  the  change 
of  «  and  S>  is  too  frequent  to  occasion  any  difficulty." — Beer  Elim,  the  well 
of  the  mighty  ones  or  heroes,  the  same  that  "  the  princes  and  nobles  of  the 
people  digged  with  their  staves"  (Num.  21 :  18).  This  explanation,  sug- 
gested by  Junius,  is  adopted  by  Vitringa  and  the  later  writers,  as  the  situa- 
tion mentioned  in  Numbers  agrees  well  with  the  context  here.  The  word 
c^tf  (substantially  equivalent  to  W*m  and  B«a^8,  the  words  used  in  Numbers) 
may  have  been  specially  applied  to  the  chiefs  of  Moab,  as  the  phrase  ifett 
SNiE  occurs  in  the  song  of  Miriam,  Ex.  15:  15. — The  mappik  in  the  final 
letter  of  fin^  is  wanting  in  some  manuscripts  and  editions.  Aurivillius  re- 
gards it  as  a  paragogic  termination  (compare  Ps.  3:  3.  125:  3),  but  other 
interpreters  follow  the  ancient  versions  in  making  it  a  suffix  referring  to 
Moab.  Henderson  needlessly  departs  in  two  points  from  the  form  of  the 
original,  by  introducing  a  masculine  pronoun  (his  wailing),  and  by  varying 
the  last  noun  (wailing,  lamentation,)  on  the  ground  that  the  repetition  would 
have  a  bad  effect  in  English.  The  suffix  in  rmbb"1  may  possibly  refer  to 
npst  and  mean  the  howling  sound  of  it  (i.  e.  the  cry). 

V.  9.  The  expressions  grow  still  stronger.  Not  only  is  the  land  full  of 
tumult  and  disorder,  fear  and  flight ;  it  is  also  stained  with  carnage  and 
threatened  with  new  evils.  For  the  waters  of  Dimon  are  full  of  blood ;  for 
I  will  bring  upon  Dimon  additions  (i.  e.  additional  evils),  on  the  escaped 
(literally,  the  escape)  of  Moab  a  lion  ;  and  on  the  remnant  of  the  land 
(those  left  in  it,  or  remaining  of  its  population).  It  is  an  ingenious  conjec- 
ture of  Junius  that  the  Dimon  is  the  stream  mentioned  2  Kings  3 :  20-22, 
in  which  case  the  meaning  of  the  clause  would  be,  this  stream  shall  not  be 
merely  red  as  it  then  was,  but  really  full  of  blood.  Jerome  says,  however, 
that  the  town  Dibon,  mentioned  in  v.  2,  was  also  called  Dimon  in  his  day, 
by  a  common  permutation  of  the  labials.  The  latter  form  may  have  been 
preferred,  in  allusion  to  the  word  Cn  following.  According  to  this  view,  the 
Prophet  here  returns  to  the  place  first  named,  and  ends  where  he  began. 
By  the  waters  of  Dimon  or  Dibon,  most  writers  understand  the  Arnon,  near 
the  north  bank  of  which  the  town  was  built,  as  the  river  Kishon  is  called 
the  waters  of  Megiddo  (Judg.  5:  19).  Hitzig  thinks  it  more  probable  that 
there  was  a  pool  or  reservoir  at  Dibon,  as  there  was  at  Heshbon  accord- 
ing to  Cant.  7 :  5,  and  according  to  modern  travellers  at  Mab  and  Medeba 
likewise. — Those  who  take  Dimon  as  the  name  of  a  river  give  to  rissis  the 
specific  meaning  of  more  blood.  Grotius  explains  it,  I  will  give  a  new  rea- 
son for  its  being  called  Dimon  (i.  e.  bloody).  Gesenius  also  admits  the 
probability  of  such  an  allusion,  on  the  ground  that  the  verb  fjS?,from  which 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XVI.  Ill 

rviBbis  is  derived,  often  includes  the  meaning  of  some  preceding  word  (Job 
20:  9.  34  :  32).  Grotius  and  Bochart  understand  the  last  clause  literally 
as  a  threat  that  God  would  send  lions  (or  according  to  Piscator,  wild  beasts 
in  general)  to  destroy  the  people,  a  judgment  elsewhere  threatened  (Lev.  26  : 
22.  Jer.  15 :  3)  and  inflicted  (2  Kings  17  :  25,  26).  But  the  later  writers 
seem  agreed  that  this  is  a  strong  figurative  expression  for  the  further  evils 
to  be  suffered  at  the  hand  of  human  enemies.  Hitzig  supposes  Judah  to  be 
called  a  lion  in  allusion  to  the  prophecy  in  Gen.  49:  9.  Cocceius  and  Vi- 
tringa  understand  it  to  mean  Nebuchadnezzar,  whose  conquest  of  the  Moab- 
ites,  though  not  historically  recorded,  may  be  gathered  from  such  passages  as 
Jer.  4:7.  49 :  28.  25  :  11-21.  27  :  3,  6.  In  itself  the  figure  is  applica- 
ble to  any  conqueror,  and  may  be  indefinitely  understood,  not  in  reference 
however  to  the  same  inflictions  just  described,  as  Rosenmuller  and  Gesenius 
think,  but  with  respect  to  new  inflictions  not  specifically  mentioned  though 
distinctly  intimated  in  the  word  m'Sbia.  The  Septuagint  makes  rr*i*  and 
n^x  both  proper  names,  Ariel  and  Admah.  According  to  Jerome  and 
Theodoret,  Ar  or  Areopolis  was  sometimes  called  Ariel,  and  Moab,  as  de- 
scended from  Lot  might  be  described  as  the  remnant  or  survivor  of  Admah, 
one  of  the  cities  of  the  plain.  Both  these  interpretations  are  adopted  by 
Lowth,  and  the  last  by  Cocceius  and  J.  D.  Michaelis. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


This  chapter  opens  with  an  exhortation  to  the  Moabites  to  seek  protec- 
tion from  their  enemies  by  renewing  their  allegiance  to  the  house  of  David, 
accompanied  by  an  intimation  that  this  prospect  of  deliverance  would  not 
in  fact  be  realized,  vs.  1-6.  From  this  transient  gleam  of  hope,  the  pro- 
phecy reverts  to  a  description  of  the  general  desolation  and  distress,  in 
form  almost  identical  with  that  in  the  foregoing  chapter,  vs.  7-12.  The 
prophecy  then  closes  with  a  specification  of  the  time  at  which  it  was  to  be 
fulfilled,  vs.  13,  14. 

The  needless  division  of  the  prophecy  at  this  point  seems  to  have  some 
connexion  with  an  old  opinion  that  the  lamb  mentioned  in  v.  1  is  Christ. 
A  similar  cause  appears  to  have  affected  the  division  of  the  second,  third, 
and  fourth  chapters. 

V.  1.  In  their  extremity,  the  Moabites  exhort  one  another  to  return  to 
their  allegiance  to  the  family  of  David,  by  whom  they  were  subdued  and 


312 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI. 


rendered  tributary  (2  Sam.  8  :  2).  When  the  kingdom  was  divided,  they 
continued  in  subjection  to  the  ten  tribes  till  the  death  of  Ahab,  paying 
yearly,  or  perhaps  at  the  accession  of  every  new  king,  a  tribute  of  a  hun- 
dred thousand  lambs  and  as  many  rams  with  the  wool  (2  Kings  3  :  4,  5). 
After  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  was  destroyed,  their  allegiance  could  be 
paid  only  to  Judah,  who  had  indeed  been  all  along  entitled  to  it.  Send  ye 
the  lamb  (i.  e.  the  customary  tribute)  to  the  ruler  of  the  land  (your  rightful 
sovereign),  from  Sela  (or  Petra)  to  the  wilderness,  to  the  mountain  of  the 
daughter  of  Zion.  Hitzig  and  Maurer  regard  these  as  the  words  of  the 
Edomites,  with  whom  they  suppose  the  Moabites  to  have  taken  refuge. 
Petra,  it  is  true,  was  an  Idumean  city  (2  Kings  14 :  7)  ;  but  it  may  at  this 
time  have  been  subject  to  the  Moabites,  by  one  of  the  fluctuations  con- 
stantly taking  place  among  these  minor  powers,  or  it  may  be  mentioned  as 
a  frontier  town,  for  the  sake  of  geographical  specification.  The  older 
writers  understand  these  as  the  words  of  the  Prophet  himself;  but  Knobel 
objects  that  both  the  Prophet  and  the  Edomites  must  have  known  that  the 
course  here  recommended  would  be  fruitless.  It  is  best  to  understand 
them,  therefore,  as  the  mutual  exhortations  of  the  Moabites  themselves  in 
their  confusion  and  alarm.  This  is  also  recommended  by  its  agreement 
with  what  goes  before  and  after.  The  verse  then  really  continues  the 
description  of  the  foregoing  chapter.  The  Septuagint  and  Peshito  render 
the  verb  in  the  first  person  singular,  /  vnll  send.  The  latter  also  instead  of 
■«  reads  *o.  This  reading  is  approved  by  Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who 
understand  the  verse  as  meaning  that  even  if  the  son  of  the  ruler  of  the  land 
(i.  e.  of  the  king  of  Moab)  should  go  upon  an  embassy  of  peace  to  Jerusa- 
lem, he  would  not  obtain  it.  Others  suppose  the  flight  of  the  king's  son  to 
be  mentioned  as  an  additional  trait  in  the  prophetic  picture.  But  this 
departure  from  the  common  text  is  wholly  unnecessary.  Forerius  and 
Malvenda  suppose  is  to  mean  a  battering-ram,  or  take  it  as  a  figurative 
term  for  soldiery  or  military  force.  Calvin  understands  by  it  a  sacrificial 
lamb  to  be  offered  to  Jehovah  as  the  ruler  of  the  earth,  in  token  of  repent- 
ance and  submission.  Most  other  writers  understand  the  tribute  of  lambs 
paid  by  Moab  to  the  kings  of  Jsrael,  and  Barnes  combines  this  sense  with 
that  before  it,  by  supposing  that  the  Jews  exacted  lambs  from  tributary 
powers,  in  order  to  supply  the  altar  with  victims.  Jerome  puts  b^E  in 
apposition  with  ^3,  and  understands  the  verse  as  a  prayer  or  a  prediction, 
that  God  would  send  forth  Christ,  the  lamb,  the  ruler  of  the  land  (or  earth). 
Others  take  bttia  as  a  vocative,  used  collectively  for  fc^VttMa :  send  oh  ye  rulers 
of  the  land.  Most  modern  writers  make  it  either  a  genitive  (the  lamb 
of  the  ruler)  i.  e.  due,  belonging  to  him,  or  a  dative  (to  or  for  the  ruler  of 
the  land),  a  common  construction  after  verbs  expressing  or  implying  motion. 
Clericus  supposes  the  ruler  of  the  land  to  be  Nebuchadnezzar  as  the  con- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XVI.  818 

queror  of  Judah.  Sela,  which  properly  denotes  a  rock,  is  now  commonly 
agreed  to  be  here  used  as  the  name  of  the  city  Petra,  the  ancient  capital  of 
Idumea,  so  called  because  surrounded  by  impassable  rocks,  and  to  a  great 
extent  hewn  in  the  rock  itself.  It  is  described  by  Strabo,  Diodorus,  and 
Josephus,  as  a  place  of  extensive  trade.  The  Greek  form  Jh'rou  is  sup- 
posed to  have  given  name  to  Arabia  Petraea  in  the  old  geography.  If  so. 
the  explanation  of  that  name  as  meaning  stony,  and  as  descriptive  of  the 
soil  of  the  whole  country,  must  be  incorrect.  Petra  was  conquered  by 
Trajan,  and  rebuilt  by  Hadrian,  on  whose  coins  its  name  is  still  extant.  It 
was  afterwards  a  bishop's  see,  but  had  ceased  to  be  inhabited  before  the 
time  of  the  crusades.  It  was  then  entirely  lost  sight  of,  until  Burckhardt 
in  1812  verified  a  conjecture  of  Seetzen's,  that  the  site  of  Petra  was  to 
be  sought  in  the  valley  called  the  Wady  Musa,  one  or  two  days'  journey 
southeast  of  the  Dead  Sea.  It  was  afterwards  explored  by  Irby  and  Man- 
gles, and  has  since  been  often  visited  and  described.  See  in  particular 
Robinson's  Palestine  II.  573-580.  Grotius  supposes  Petra  to  be  men- 
tioned as  an  extreme  point,  from  Petra  to  the  wilderness,  i.  e.  throughout 
the  whole  extent  of  Moab.  Ewald  understands  it  to  be  named  as  the  most 
convenient  place  for  the  purchase  of  the  lambs  required.  Vitringa  sup- 
poses that  the  Moabites  fed  their  flocks  in  the  wilderness  by  which  Petra 
was  surrounded.  Luther's  translation,  from  the  wilderness,  is  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  the  form  of  the  original.  The  construction  given  by  some  of 
the  old  writers,  Sela  of  the  wilderness,  disregards  the  local  or  directive  n. 
That  of  Gesenius  and  other  recent  writers,  through  or  along  the  wilderness, 
is  also  a  departure  from  the  form  of  the  original,  which  can  only  mean  from 
Petra  to  the  wilderness  (and  thence)  to  Mount  Zion  (or  Jerusalem).  Jerome 
explains  the  whole  verse  as  a  prediction  of  Christ's  descent  from  Ruth  the 
Moabitess,  the  lamb,  the  ruler  of  the  land,  sent  forth  from  the  rock  of  the 
wilderness  !  The  Targum  paraphrases  ruler  of  the  land  by  the  Messiah 
(or  anointed)  of  Israel,  which  may  possibly  mean  nothing  more  than  king. 

V.  2.  This  verse  assigns  the  ground  or  reason  of  the  exhortation  in  the 
one  before  it.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass,  that)  like  a  bird  wander- 
ing, (like)  a  nest  cast  out,  shall  be  the  daughters  of  Moab,  the  fords  of 
Arnon.  The  construction  cast  out  from  the  nest  is  inconsistent  with  the 
form  of  the  original.  Nest  may  be  understood  as  a  poetical  term  for  its 
contents.  The  nidi  edaces  of  Virgil  are  analogous.  There  are  three  inter- 
pretations of  -X1T3  mas.  1 .  The  first  gives  the  words  the  geographical  sense 
of  villages  or  dependent  towns.  (Vide  supra  ch.  3:  16.  4:  4.)  To  this 
it  has  been  objected  that  TO  has  this  sense  only  when  it  stands  in  connexion 
with  the  metropolis  or  mother  city.  Ewald  and  Hitzig  modify  this  inter- 
pretation by  making  daughters  mean  the  several  communities  or  neighbour- 


314  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XVI. 

hoods  of  which  the  nation  was  composed.  2.  The  second  explanation 
makes  it  mean  the  people  generally,  here  called  daughters,  as  the  whole  pop- 
ulation is  elsewhere  called  daughter.  3.  The  third  gives  the  words  their 
strict  sense  as  denoting  the  female  inhabitants  of  Moab,  whose  flight  and  suf- 
ferings  are  a  sufficient  index  to  the  state  of  things.  In  the  absence  of  any- 
conclusive  reason  for  dissenting  from  this  strict  and  proper  sense  of  the 
expressions,  it  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  miasa  is  not  a  participle 
agreeing  with  msa,  passing  (or  when  they  pass)  the  Arnon ;  nor  does  it 
mean  the  two  sides  of  the  river,  but  its  fords  or  passes.  Ewald  supposes  it 
to  be  put  for  the  dwellers  near  the  river,  which  is  arbitrary.  Some  suppose 
it  to  be  governed  by  a  preposition  understood,  or  to  be  used  absolutely  as  a 
noun  of  place,  while  others  put  it  in  apposition  with  maa,  '  the  daughters 
of  Moab,  the  fords  of  Arnon.'  The  b  in  the  last  word  denotes  possession — 
the  fords  which  belong  to  Arnon.  This  is  mentioned  as  the  principal  stream 
of  Moab.  Whether  at  this  time  it  ran  through  the  country  or  was  its 
northern  boundary,  is  doubtful. 

V.  3.  Most  of  the  older  writers,  from  Jerome  downwards,  understand 
this  verse  as  a  continuation  of  the  advice  to  the  Moabites,  in  which  they  are 
urged  to  act  with  prudence  as  well  as  justice,  to  take  counsel  (i.  e.  provide 
for  their  own  safety)  as   well  as  execute  judgment  (i.  e.   act  right  towards 
others).     In  other  words,  they  are  exhorted  to  prepare  for  the  day  of  their 
own  calamity,  by  exercising  mercy  towards  the  Jews   in   theirs.     Calvin 
adopts  this  general  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  verse,  but  interprets  it  ironi- 
cally as  he  does  the  first,  and  understands  the  Prophet  as  intending   to 
reproach  the  Moabites  sarcastically  for  their  cruel  treatment  of  the  Jewish 
fugitives  in  former  times.     This   forced   interpretation,  which  is  certainly 
unworthy  of  its  author,  seems  to  have  found  favour  with  no  other.     It  is  not 
the  first  case  in  which  Calvin  has  allowed  his  exposition  to  be  marred  by 
the  gratuitous  assumption  of  a  sarcastic  and  ironical  design.     Gesenius  and 
most  of  the  later  writers  follow  Saadias  in  regarding  this  verse  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Moabitish  suppliants  or  messengers,  addressed  to  Judah.    iK^an 
nxs   they  explain  to  mean  bring  counsel,  i.  e.  counsel  us,  and  execute  jus- 
tice, i.  e.  treat  us  justly.     Hitzig   takes  nWt)   in  the  sense  of  intervention 
(interpose  between  the  parties),  Maurer  in  that  of  intercession,  Hendewerk 
in  that  of  decision.     According  to  Aben  Ezra,  nu?   IfirtSM  means  apply  or 
exercise  your  understanding  (Ps.  90:    12)  ;  according  to   Vitringa,  apply 
prudence  to  your  conduct,  i.  e.  regulate  it  prudently.     The  explanation  of 
the  verse  as  the  words  of  the  Moabites  addressed  to  the  Jews,  is  favoured  by 
the  foregoing  context,  which  relates   throughout  to  the  sufferings  of  Moab, 
whereas  on  the  other  supposition,  the  prophet  suddenly  exhorts  the  sufferers 
to  harbour  the  fugitives  of  that  very  nation,  with  whom  they  had   them- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI.  815 

selves  been  exhorted  to  seek  refuge.  This  interpretation  also  relieves  us 
from  the  necessity  of  determining  historically  what  particular  affliction  of 
the  Israelites  or  Jews  is  here  referred  to,  a  question  which  has  occasioned 
much  perplexity,  and  which  can  be  solved  only  by  conjecture.  According 
to  Vitringa,  the  passage  refers  to  the  invasion  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  Manas- 
seh,  by  Tiglath  Pileser  in  the  fourth  year  of  Ahaz  (2  Kings  15:  29),  and 
also  to  the  invasion  of  Judah  by  the  Edomites  about  the  same  time  (2  Chron. 
28:  17).  Others  refer  the  passage  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  of  Judah,  and 
others  to  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Knobel  supposes  the  object  of  address 
to  be  the  Edomites.  As  noonday  heat  is  a  common  oriental  figure  to  denote 
distress  (Isai.  4 :  6.  25  :  4.  32 :  2),  so  a  shadow  is  relief  from  it.  Possi- 
bly, however,  the  allusion  here  is  to  the  light  of  noonday,  and  the  shadow 
dark  as  night  denotes  concealment.  If  so,  the  clause  is  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  the  one  which  follows.  Some  of  those  who  adopt  the  other 
sense  suppose  a  climax  in  the  sentence.  Relieve,  refresh  the  sufferers — or 
at  least  conceal  them — or  if  that  is  too  much  to  ask,  at  least  do  not  betray 
them. 

V.  4.  Let  my  outcasts,  Moab,  sojourn  with  thee,  be  thou  a  covert 
(refuge  or  hiding-place)  to  them  from  the  face  (or  presence)  of  the  spoiler 
(or  oppressor)  ;  for  the  extortioner  is  at  an  end,  oppression  has  ceased,  con- 
sumed are  the  tr ampler s  out  of  the  land.  Here,  as  in  the  preceding  verse, 
the  sense  depends  upon  the  object  of  address.  If  it  be  Moab,  as  the  older 
writers  held,  the  outcasts  referred  to  are  the  outcasts  of  Israel.  If  the 
address  be  to  Israel,  the  outcasts  are  those  of  Moab.  The  latter  interpreta- 
tion seems  to  be  irreconcilable  with  the  phrase  3tfi?3  hrna.  Gesenius  disre- 
gards the  accent  and  supposes  an  ellipsis  before  Moab  :  my  outcasts,  even 
those  of  Moab.  So  also  Rosenmuller  and  Hendewerk.  The  other  recent 
German  writers  follow  Lowth  in  reading  SWta  tit^  outcasts  of  Moab,  a  con- 
struction found  in  all  the  ancient  versions.  Maurer,  without  a  change  of 
vowels,  explains  ^nns  as  an  old  form  of  the  plural  construct.  Calvin  gives 
the  verbs  in  the  last  clause  a  past  or  present  sense,  and  supposes  the  first 
clause  to  be  ironical.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  Y"es,  give  them  shelter  and  pro- 
tection now,  now  when  their  oppressor  is  destroyed,  and  they  have  no 
need  of  assistance/  Ewald  also  takes  the  preterites  strictly,  but  understands 
the  second  clause  to  mean  that  the  Moabites  were  encouraged  thus  to  ask 
aid  of  Judah,  because  the  former  oppressive  government  had  ceased  there 
and  a  better  reign  begun,  more  fully  described  in  the  next  verse.  But 
most  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern,  give  the  verbs  in  this  last  clause  a 
future  sense.  As  if  he  had  said,  c  Give  the  fugitives  a  shelter  ;  they  will  not 
need  it  long,  for  the  extortioner  will  soon  cease,'  etc.  This  gives  an  ap- 
propriate sense,  whether  the  words  be  addressed  to  Israel  or  Moab.     Some 


3l6  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI. 

who  adopt  the  same  construction  supply  the  ellipsis  in  another  way.  e  Fear 
not  to  shelter  them,  for  the  oppressor  will  soon  cease,'  etc.  Knobel  ex- 
plains the  clause  as  an  assurance,  on  the  part  of  the  Moabites,  that  they 
would  no  longer  vex  or  oppress  Edom,  to  whom  he  imagines  that  the  words 
are  addressed.  The  collective  construction  of  b*n  with  WPJ  is  not  uncom- 
mon in  the  case  of  participles.  (Ewald  <§>  599.) 

V.  5.  This  verse  contains  a  promise,  that  if  the  Jews  afforded  shelter  to 
the  fugitives  of  Moab,  their  own  government  should  be  strengthened  by  this 
exercise  of  mercy,  and  their  national  prosperity  promoted  by  the  appearance 
of  a  king  in  the  family  of  David,  who  should  possess  the  highest  qualifica- 
tions of  a  moral  kind  for  the  regal  office.  And  a  throne  shall  be  established 
in  mercy,  and  one  shall  sit  upon  it  in  truth  in  the  tent  of  David,  judging 
and  seeking  justice  and  prompt  in  equity.  Knobel  supposes  the  throne  here 
meant  to  be  that  of  the  Jewish  viceroy  in  Edom,  called  a  B&itt  to  distinguish 
him  from  the  top  or  lord  paramount.  Clericus  fancies  an  allusion  to  Geda- 
liah  who  was  appointed  viceroy  of  Judah  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  Barnes, 
who  follows  the  old  writers  in  making  Moab  the  object  of  address,  under- 
stands this  is  a  promise  that  the  Jewish  government  would  hereafter  exer- 
cise kindness  towards  the  Moabites.  Grotius  understands  this  verse  as  a 
promise  to  the  Moabites  that  their  throne  should  be  established  (if  they  har- 
boured the  Jewish  refugees)  in  the  tabernacle  of  David,  i.  e.  under  the 
shadow  or  protection  of  his  family.  But  the  tabernacle  of  David  has  no 
doubt  the  same  meaning  here  as  the  analogous  expression  in  Amos  9:  11. 
Barnes's  translation,  citadel  of  David,  is  entirely  gratuitous.  Most  writers 
understand  it  as  a  promise  of  stability  to  Judah  itself.  Some  suppose  a 
reference  to  Hezekiah  ;  but  the  analogy  of  other  cases  makes  it  probable  that 
the  words  were  intended  to  include  a  reference  to  all  the  good  kings  of  the 
house  of  David,  not  excepting  the  last  king  of  that  race,  to  whom  God  was 
to  give  the  throne  of  his  father  David,  who  was  to  reign  over  the  house  of 
Jacob  forever,  and  of  whose  kingdom  there  should  be  no  end  (Luke  1  : 
32,  33).  Hence  the  indefinite  expression,  one  shall  sit,  i.  e.  there  shall 
always  be  one  to  sit  on  David's  throne.  It  is  true  that  J.  D.  Michaelis  and 
the  later  Germans  make  nr"1  agree  with  :s55i3  as  a  noun — there  shall  sit 
thereon  a  judge,  etc.  But  this  construction  is  forbidden  by  the  position  of 
the  latter  word,  and  by  its  close  connexion  with  wyi,  which  can  only  be 
construed  as  a  participle. 

V.  6.  We  have  heard  the  pride  of  Moab,  the  very  proud,  his  haughti- 
ness and  his  pride  and  his  wrath,  the  falsehood  of  his  pretensions.  Those 
writers  who  suppose  Moab  to  be  addressed  in  the  preceding  verses,  under- 
stand this  as  a  reason  for  believing  that  he  will  not  follow  the  advice  just 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI.  317 

given.  As  if  he  bad  said  :  'it  is  vain  to  recommend  this  merciful  and  just 
course,  for  we  have  heard  etc.*  But  the  modern  writers  who  regard  what 
immediately  precedes  as  the  language  addressed  by  the  Moabitish  fugitives 
to  Judaic  explain  this  as  a  reason  for  rejecting  their  petition.  In  the  second 
clause  the  English  Version  supplies  the  substantive  verb,  he  is  very  proud. 
A  simpler  construction  is  adopted  by  most  writers,  which  connects  it  imme- 
diately with  what  precedes.  Knobel  makes  it  agree  with  ym,  but  Ewald 
more  naturally  with  ssoe.  The  four  derivatives  of  one  root  in  this  sentence 
are  imitated  in  Henderson's  paraphrase :  haughtiness,  haughty,  high-mind- 
edness,  hauteur.  Most  modern  writers  are  agreed  that  ",3  is  here  an  adjec- 
tive meaning  right  or  true,  and  that  in  combination  with  the  negative  it 
forms  a  compound  noun  meaning  vanity  or  falsehood,  cna  is  variously 
explained  as  denoting  lies,  vain  pretensions,  plausible  speeches,  idle  talk,  all 
which  ideas  are  perhaps  included.  Barnes  introduces  an  interjection  in  the 
second  clause  (ah!  his  haughtiness !  etc.)  but  the  true  construction  is  no 
doubt  the  common  one,  which  governs  these  nouns  by  WtW.  This  is  also 
the  simplest  construction  of  the  last  clause :  '  we  have  heard  the  falsehood 
of  his  vain  pretensions.'  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  supply  either  are  or 
shall  be. 

V.  7.  Therefore  (because  thus  rejected)  Moab  shall  howl  for  Moab ; 
all  of  it  shall  howl ;  for  the  grapes  (or  raisin-cakes)  of  Kir-hares eth  shall  ye 
sigh  (or  moan),  only  (i.  e.  altogether)  smitten.  Umbreit  and  others  make 
h^b^  a  descriptive  present  (Moab  howls).  Others,  as  DeWette,  read  must 
howl ;  Henderson,  may  howl ;  Ewald,  let  Moab  howl.  There  is,  however, 
no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the  future. — Je- 
rome and  Clericus  take  b  in  the  sense  of  to,  Knobel  in  that  of  as  to  or  as 
for,  making  aafra  an  absolute  nominative — as  for  Moab,  it  shall  howl — 
equivalent  in  emphasis  to  Moab,  yes,  Moab  shall  howl.  For  an  example 
of  the  same  construction,  he  refers  to  ch.  32:  1  ;  but  as  it  is  confessedly  a 
rare  one,  and  as  there  is  no  necessity  for  assuming  it  in  this  case,  it  is  better 
to  adhere  to  the  common  interpretation  of  auroVj  as  denoting  the  subject  or 
occasion  of  the  lamentation.  By  Moab  howling  for  Moab,  Jerome  under- 
stands the  mutual  lamentations  of  the  city  and  the  provinces,  or  town  and 
country  ;  Barnes,  the  alternate  responses  of  one  part  to  another  in  their 
lamentation  ;  others  simply  the  mourning  of  one  Moabite  for  another.  The 
idea  may  be  that  the  nation  of  Moab  mourns  for  the  land  of  Moab,  but  the 
simplest  supposition  is  that  Moab  for  Moab  means  Moab  for  itself.  The 
English  version  of  rfrs  (every  one)  overlooks  the  suffix,  which  is  also  the 
case  with  the  simple  version  all,  and  the  distributive  paraphrase  of  Clericus 
(quotquot  sunt).  The  form  of  the  original  is  retained  by  Ewald  (ganz  es 
jammre)  let  it  all  lament.    The  next  clause  Clericus  translates,  to  (or  at) the 


318  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI. 


walls  of  Kir-hares  eth  ye  shall  talk  (ad  muros  colloquemini).  But  all  the  later 
writers  give  the  particle  the  sense  of  for,  as  in  the  first  clause,  and  the  verb 
that  of  sigh  or  moan.  The  word  *©*»«  seems  to  have  perplexed  the  old 
translators,  some  of  whom  confound  it  with  the  verb  ^W'1  or  one  of  its  de- 
rivatives. Thus  the  Vulgate  has  his  qui  laetantur  super  muros  cocti  lateris. 
Lowth  and  Dathe  read  *«W  on  the  authority  of  Jer.  47  :  31.  But  in  all 
such  cases  of  imitation  or  reconstruction  which  occur  in  Scripture,  there  are 
many  intentional  and  significant  changes  of  one  word  for  another  similar  in 
form  but  different  in  sense.  For  a  clear  and  ample  illustration  of  this  prac- 
tice, see  Hengstenberg's  comparison  of  Psalm  xviii  with  2  Sam.  xxn,  in 
his  commentary  on  the  former.  Vitringa  takes  *VftPR  in  the  sense  of  wine- 
flagons,  and  this  interpretation  is  approved  by  most  of  the  early  writers,  who 
suppose  d^ibk  to  have  here  the  same  sense  as  BWM  and  rWttK  else- 
where (Hos.  3:  1.  Cant.  2:  5.  Comp.  2  Sam.  6:  19,  1  Chron.  16  :  3).  J. 
D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Germans  give  the  word  in  this  one  case  the  sense 
of  foundations  (equivalent  in  this  connexion  to  ruins)  derived  from  an  Arabic 
analogy.  Cocceius  curiously  combines  the  two  ideas  by  explaining  the 
word  to  mean  the  props  or  supports  of  the  vines  (sustentacula  uvarum). 
Ewald  and  Knobel  have  returned  to  the  old  interpretation,  except  that  they 
explain  the  word  wherever  it  occurs  to  mean,  not  flasks  or  flagons,  but  cakes 
of  grapes  or  raisins  pressed  together.  This  allusion  to  grapes  agrees  well 
with  the  subsequent  mention  of  the  vines  of  Moab.  The  other  interpreta- 
tion is  favoured  by  the  meaning  of  the  name  Kir-hareseth  (a  wall  of  earth 
or  brick).  The  same  place  is  mentioned  2  Kings  3  :  25,  and  is  no  doubt 
identical  with  Kir-Moab  (ch.  15:  1),  which  latter  form  may  have  been 
used  to  correspond  with  the  parallel  name  Ar-Moab.  The  particle  T|K, 
which  is  variously  rendered  but  (Clericus),  for  (Barnes),  surely  (English 
Version),  wholly  (Henderson),  strictly  means  only,  nothing  but,  and  is  so 
translated  by  Knobel  (nur  zerscnlagen)  and  Ewald  (nichts  als  betriibt). 
Knobel  applies  the  last  word  in  the  sentence  to  the  grapes  or  raisin-cakes, 
as  being  all  consumed  or  gone,  implying  the  desolation  of  the  vineyards.  It 
is  more  natural,  however,  to  refer  it  to  the  people,  as  being  smitten,  down- 
cast, and  distressed. 

V.  8.  For  the  fields  of  Heshbon  are  withered — the  vine  of  Sibmah — 
the  lords  of  the  nations  broke  down  its  choice  plants — unto  Jazer  they 
reached — they  strayed  into  (or  through)  the  desert — its  branches — they  were 
stretched  out — they  reached  to  (or  over)  the  sea.  Clericus  renders  bbaat  as 
a  future,  which  destroys  the  force  of  the  description.  On  the  construction 
of  hbizx  with  nWttj  vide  supra,  ch.  3:12.  Sibmah  is  mentioned  Num.  32  : 
38.  Josh.  13:  19,  and  in  the  former  place  joined  with  Nebo,  which  occurs 
above,  ch.  15:  2.     It  had  been  taken  by  the  Amorites,  but  was  probably 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI.  31(J 

again  recovered.     Eusebius  speaks  of  it  as  a  town  of  Gilead,  and  Jerome 
describes  it  as  not  more;  than  half  a  mile  from  Heshbon.     For  ^brathe  LXX 
have  xuTanivovTES,  confounding  it,  as  Clericus  observes,  with  ^z.    Heathen, 
in  the  modern  sense,  is  not  a  correct  version  of  CPl^  as  the  Moabitcs  them- 
selves were  heathen.     According  to  the  English  Version,  it  would  seem  to 
be  the  lords  of  the  nations  who  came  to  Jazer,  wandered  through  the  wil- 
derness, etc.     All  this,  however,  is  really  predicated  of  the  vines,  the  luxu- 
riant growth  of  which  is  the  subject  of  the  following  clauses.     As  the  verb 
cbn  is  used,  ch.  28:  1,  to  express  the  intoxicating  power  of  wine,  Cocceius 
gives  it  that  sense  here,  and  makes  it  agree  with  rftptftV  as  its  subject :   the 
choice  vines  of  Sibmah  overcame  the  rulers  of  the  nations,  i.  e.  the  wine  was 
drunk  at  royal  tables.     This  ingenious  exposition  is  adopted  by  Vitringa, 
Lowth,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hendewerk,  DeWette,  Knobel,  on   the  ground  of 
its  agreement  with  the  subsequent  praises  of  the  vine  of  Sibmah.     Gesenius 
objects  that  there  is  then  no  mention  of  the  wasting  of  the  vineyards  by  the 
enemy,  unless  this  can  be  supposed  to  be  included  in  V?~x.     Besides  Gese- 
nius, RosenmQller,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  most  of  the  older  writers,  make 
rrpiTtf  the  object  of  the  verb.     On  the  meaning  of  the  noun  itself  compare 
what  is  said  of  the  cognate  from  p-rnu,  supra,  ch.  5 :  2.     Jazer  is  mentioned 
Num.  21  :  32,  and  described  by  Eusebius  as   fifteen  miles  from  Heshbon, 
and  ten  west  of  Philadelphia,  on  a  stream  running  into  the  Jordan.     It  is 
here  mentioned  as  a  northern  point,  the  desert  and  the  sea  representing  the 
east  and  the  west  or  south.     Knobel   infers  from  this  that  Sibmah  was  a 
well-known  centre  of  wine-culture.     In  the  absence  of  a  preposition  before 
■"an*,  it  may  be  rendered  either  through  the  wilderness,  or  simply  into  it. 
Knobel  supposes  the  word  stray  or  wander  to  be  used  because  the  wilder- 
ness is  pathless.     The  exact  sense  of  r'n^uj  is  things  sent  forth,  or  as  Cleri- 
cus expresses  it,  missiones.     *p9  without  a   preposition  sometimes  denotes 
the  act  of  passing  simply  to  a  place,  and  this  sense  is  adopted  here  by  the 
Septuagint  and  Henderson.     But  most  writers  adhere   to  the  more  usual 
sense  of  passing  over,  which  may  either  mean  that  the  vines  covered  the 
shore  and  overhung  the  water,  or  that   the  luxuriant  vineyards  of  Moab 
really  extended  beyond  the  northern  point  of  the  Dead  Sea.     In  the  paral- 
lel passage,  Jer.  48  :  32,  we  read  of  the  sea  of  Jazer.     Henderson  regards 
the  c  in  that  phrase  as  an  interpolation,  a  conclusion   not  sufficiently  sup- 
ported by  the  authority  of  two  Hebrew  manuscripts  and  one  ancient  ver- 
sion.    The  sea  of  Jazer  may  have  been  a   lake  in  its  vicinity,  or  even  a 
reservoir,  such  as  Seetzen  found  there.     The  same  traveller  found  an  abun- 
dant growth  of  vines  in  the  region  here  described,  while  at  Szalt  (the  an- 
cient Ramoth)  Burckhardt  and  Buckingham  both  speak,  not  only  of  the 
multitude  of  grapes,  but  of  an  active  trade  in  raisins. 


320  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI. 

V.  9.  Therefore  I  ivill  weep  with  the  weeping  of  Jazer  (for)  the  vine 
of  Sibmah.  I  will  wet  thee  (with)  my  tears,  Heshbon  and  (thee)  Elealeh  ! 
For  upon  thy  fruit  and  upon  thy  harvesi  a  cry  has  fallen.  Some  suppose 
these  to  be  the  words  of  a  Moabite  bewailing  the  general  calamity.  There 
is  no  objection,  however,  to  the  supposition,  that  the  prophet  here  expresses 
his  own  sympathy  with  the  distress  of  Moab,  as  an  indirect  method  of  de- 
scribing its  intensity.  The  emphasis  does  not  lie  merely  in  the  Prophet's 
feeling  for  a  foreign  nation,  but  in  his  feeling  for  a  guilty  race,  on  whom  he 
was  inspired  to  denounce  the  wrath  of  God.  Most  of  the  modern  writers 
give  the  verbs  a  present  form ;  but  Ewald  makes  them  expressive  of  en- 
treaty, let  me  weep  etc.  There  is  no  sufficient  cause,  however,  for  depart- 
ing from  the  strict  sense  of  the  future,  which  is  still  retained  by  Barnes  and 
Henderson.  Clericus  takes  '■saa  haa*  together  and  translates  it  flebo  in  jle- 
tu;  but  the  accents  join  the  second  word,  no  doubt  correctly,  with  what 
follows.  The  sense  is  not  that  he  will  weep  for  the  vine  of  Sibmah  as  he 
does  for  Jazer,  the  construction  given  by  Clericus  and  Barnes,  but  that  he 
will  weep  for  the  vines  of  Sibmah  as  Jazer  (i.  e,  the  inhabitants  of  Jazer) 
did,  who  were  particularly  interested  in  them.  There  is  no  need  of  suppos- 
ing, with  Hendewerk,  a  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jazer  by  the  Israel- 
ites in  the  times  of  Moses  (Num.  21 :  32,  32:  35).  *y*m  is  strongly  ren- 
dered by  Jerome  (inebriabo), Clericus  (irrigabo),  Hendewerk  (uberstrome), 
but  strictly  means  to  saturate  with  moisture.  On  the  anomalous  form,  see 
Gesenius,  <§>  74,  17,  <§>  71,  7.  "pp,  which  elsewhere  means  the  fruit  of 
summer  (Jer.  40:  12.  Am.  8  :  1),  is  used  here  and  in  ch.  28:  4  to  denote 
the  ingathering  of  the  fruit.  This  peculiar  usage  of  the  term  is  urged  by 
Hendewerk  as  a  proof  that  the  passage  was  written  by  Isaiah.  In  like 
manner,  he  maintains  that  if  dbn  in  v.  8  has  the  same  sense  as  in  ch.  28 :  1, 
x  as  Hitzig  alleges,  it  is  an  incidental  proof  that  Hitzig  is  mistaken  in  denying 
the  genuineness  of  this  prophecy.  These  arguments  are  mentioned,  not  on 
account  of  their  intrinsic  weight,  but  as  effective  arguments  ad  hominem,  and 
as  illustrations  of  the  ease  with  which  the  weapons  of  a  fanciful  criticism 
may  be  turned  upon  itself.  *9*ti,  according  to  its  etymology  and  usage, 
may  be  applied  to  any  shout  or  cry  whatever,  and  is  actually  used  to  denote 
both  a  war-cry  or  alarm  (Jer.  51  :  14),  and  a  joyful  shout,  such  as  that 
which  accompanies  the  vintage  (Jer.  25:  30).  In  the  next  verse,  it  has 
clearly  the  latter  sense,  which  some  retain  here  also,  giving  to  bss  the  sense 
of  ceasing,  as  in  the  text  of  the  English  Version.  Others  prefer  the  former 
sense,  as  given  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible,  and  take  ^s  bfii  in  that 
of  falling  upon  suddenly,  attacking  by  surprise,  which  is  sometimes  express- 
ed elsewhere  by  a  Vss  (e.  g.  Josh.  11  :  7).  The  latest  writers  are  agreed, 
however,  that  there  is  here  an  allusion  to  both  senses  or  applications  of  the 
term,  and  that  the  thing  predicted  is,  that  instead  of  the  joyful  shout  of  vin- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI.  3->l 

tage  or  of  harvest,  they  should  be  surprised  by  the  cry  of  battle.  This  idea 
is  beautifully  clothed  in  another  form  by  Jeremiah  (48  :  33),  their  shouting 
shall  be  no  shouting,  i.  e.  not  such  as  they  expected  and  designed,  or,  as  De 
Wette  vigorously  renders  it,  war-cry,  not  harvest-cry  (Schlachtruf,  nicht 
Herbstruf).  On  the  strength  of  the  parallelism,  Knobel  gives  to  *nxp  the 
sense  of  vintage  or  fruit-harvest,  as  in  ch.  18:5.  Ewald  retains  the  strict 
sense,  and  supposes  the  two  kinds  of  ingathering  to  be  distinctly  specified. 
For  *nxp  and  TW,  Lowth  reads  vsa  and  IWj  in  imitation  of  Jer.  48  :  32. 
But  the  insecurity  of  such  assimilations  has  been  shown  already  in  the  ex- 
position of  v.  7.  The  ancient  versions,  and  especially  the  Septuagint,  are 
so  confused  and  unintelligible  here  that  Clericus,  not  without  reason,  repre- 
sents them  as  translating  audacter  aeque  ac  absurde. 

V.  10.  And  taken  away  is  joy  and  gladness  from  the  fruitful  field,  and 
in  the  vineyards  shall  no  (more)  be  sung,  no  (more)  be  shouted :  wine  in 
the  presses  shall  the  treader  not  tread ;  the  cry  have  I  stilled  (or  caused  to 
cease).  Hendewerk  translates  the  vav  at  the  beginning  so  that,  in  order  to 
show  that  this  verse  describes  the  effect  of  what  is  threatened  in  v.  9.  Hen- 
derson omits  the  particle  entirely.  It  is  best,  however,  to  give  it  its  proper 
sense  of  and.  There  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  future  meaning  of 
the  verbs  ;  but  most  of  the  later  writers  prefer  the  descriptive  present. 
The  strict  sense  of  p,bsu  is  gathered,  and  by  implication  taken  away  from 
its  former  place.  On  the  masculine  form  of  the  verb,  see  Gesenius  $  144,  a. 
Jerome  and  Clericus  take  baia  as  a  proper  name,  denoting  a  cultiva- 
ted hill  like  Carmel ;  but  it  is  no  doubt  an  appellative,  as  in  ch.  10:  18. 
DeWette  and  Knobel  give  it  here  the  specific  sense  of  orchard,  others  that 
of fruitful  field J,  or  cultivated  ground  in  general.  According  to  Clericus  the 
verbs  in  the  next  clause  are  active,  and  xb  equivalent  to  XBVk  sb  (nemo  vo- 
ciferahitur).  They  are  really  passive,  both  in  form  and  meaning,  and  inde- 
finitely construed.  Barnes  and  Henderson  resolve  it  into  our  idiom  by  em- 
ploying a  noun  and  the  substantive  verb  :  there  shall  be  no  cry  or  shouting. 
The  later  Germans  retain  the  original  construction.  Hendewerk  explains 
s?^"1  as  the  Pual  of  W»,  Gesenius  as  the  Palul  of  5"n.  In  the  next  clause, 
Barnes,  DeWette,  and  Ewald,  read  no  treader,  Henderson  and  Umbreit 
more  exactly  the  treader,  leaving  the  &&  to  qualify  the  verb.  The  English 
Version,  on  the  other  hand,  by  using  the  expression  no  wine,  seems  to  imply 
that  the  treading  of  the  grapes  would  not  be  followed  by  its  usual  result, 
whereas  the  meaning  is  that  the  grapes  would  not  be  trodden  at  all.  The 
same  version  needlessly  puts  treaders  in  the  plural.  The  idiomatic  com- 
bination of  the  verb  and  its  participle  or  derivative  noun  (fTO  "p^)  is  not 
uncommon  in  Hebrew.  (See  for  example,  Ez.  33  :  4.  2  Sam.  17:9.  Deut. 
22  :  8.)     The  word  vats,  used  by  Barnes  and   Henderson  in  rendering  this 

21 


322  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI. 


clause,  is  less  appropriate  than  the  common  version  presses.  (Vide  supra, 
ch.  5  :  2.)  The  ancient  mode  of  treading  grapes  is  still  preserved  in  some 
of  the  monuments  of  Egypt.  Umbreit  gives  Wh  the  general  sense  of  tu- 
mult (Getummel),  Ewald  that  of  wild  noise  (den  wilden  Larm)  ;  but  most 
writers  understand  it  here  as  specifically  meaning  the  vintage  or  harvest- 
shout.  *n!WJh  may  be  rendered  either  as  a  preterite  or  present.  It  signifies 
not  merely  to  bring  to  an  end,  but  to  still  or  silence.  This  prediction  of 
course  implies  the  failure  of  the  vintage,  if  not  the  destruction  of  the 
vineyards. 

V.  1 1 .  Therefore  my  bowels  for  Moab  like  the  harp  shall  sound,  and 
my  inwards  for  Kirhares.  The  viscera  are  evidently  mentioned  as  the  seat 
of  the  affections.  Modern  usage  would  require  heart  and  bosom.  Barnes 
correctly  applies  to  this  verse  the  distinction  which  philologists  have  made 
between  the  ancient  usage  of  bowels  to  denote  the  upper  viscera  and  its 
modern  restriction  to  the  lower  viscera,  a  change  which  sufficiently 
accounts  for  the  different  associations  excited  by  the  same  or  equivalent 
expressions,  then  and  now.  Ewald  goes  too  far  in  softening  the  expression 
when  he  translates  e^se  feelings.  The  comparison  is  either  with  the  sad 
notes  of  a  harp,  or  with  the  striking  of  its  strings,  which  may  be  used  to 
represent  the  beating  of  the  heart  or  the  commotion  of  the  nerves.  Sound 
is  not  an  adequate  translation  of  tahi,  which  conveys  the  idea  of  tumultuous 
agitation.  Clericus  understands  the  mention  of  the  bowels  as  intended  to 
suggest  the  idea  of  a  general  commotion  (totus  commovebor).  He  also 
gives  to  b,m  as  in  v.  7,  the  sense  of  ad.  Kir-hares  is  another  variation  of  the 
name  written  Kir-hareseth  in  v.  7,  and  Kir-Moab  in  ch.  15:  1. 

V.  12.  From  the  impending  ruin  Moab  attempts  in  vain  to  save  him- 
self by  supplication  to  his  gods.  They  are  powerless  and  he  is  desperate. 
And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass),  when  Moab  has  appeared  (before  his 
gods),  when  he  has  wearied  himself  (with  vain  oblations)  on  the  high 
place,  then  (literally  and)  he  shall  enter  into  his  sanctuary  to  pray,  and 
shall  not  be  able  (to  obtain  an  answer).  Another  construction,  equally 
grammatical,  though  not  so  natural,  confines  the  apodosis  to  ^di*1  &6i : 
1  when  he  has  appeared  etc.  and  enters  into  his  sanctuary  to  pray,  he  shall 
not  be  able/  A  third  gives  to  "*!b  its  more  usual  sense  of  that ;  but  this 
requires  nx^  and  ttfitffc  to  be  taken  as  futures,  which  is  inadmissible.  Lu- 
ther and  Castalio,  on  the  other  hand,  refer  even  5>3^  to  the  past :  '  and  has 
accomplished  nothing.'  Some  regard  na"t3  as  impersonal,  it  shall  be  seen  or 
when  it  is  seen.  But  the  phrase  would  then  add  nothing  to  the  sense,  and 
n^3  is  the  technical  term  for  the  appearance  of  the  worshipper  before  his 
god.     (Vide  supra,  ch.  1  :   12.)      Lowth  reads  Hsn  (ivhen  Moab  shall  see) 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVI.  323 

on  the  authority  of  the  Targum  and  Peshito.  At  the  same  time  he  pro- 
nounces it  t  a  very  probable  conjecture  '  of  Seeker,  that  hn*o  is  a  various 
reading  for  nx?3,  inadvertently  inserted  in  the  text.  To  this  opinion  Gese- 
nius  also  is  inclined,  though  he  retains  both  words,  and  copies  the  parono- 
masia by  rendering  them  man  sieht  and  sich  muhet.  For  the  first,  Knobej 
substitutes  zieht.  Ewald  has  erscheint  and  umsonst  weint.  Henderson 
translates  fa  though,  which  is  unnecessary,  but  does  not  affect  the  sense. 
Vitringa  regards  rnaa  as  identical  with  jSw/^oV,  and  quotes  Diodorus's  descrip- 
tion of  the  vast  altars  sometimes  erected  by  the  ancients,  the  ascent  to 
which  must  of  course  have  been  laborious.  That  the  Flebrew  word  does 
not  mean  a  hill,  he  argues  from  the  fact  that  rvisa  were  sometimes  erected 
in  cities  (2  Chron.  28  :  25.  Jer.  32:  35).  But  the  word  means  a  height 
or  high  place,  whether  natural  or  artificial.  The  singular  form  may  be 
regarded  as  collective,  but  need  not  be  translated  in  the  plural.  The 
weariness  here  spoken  of  is  understood  by  some  as  referring  to  the  compli- 
cated and  laborious  ritual  of  the  heathen  worship ;  by  others,  simply  to  the 
multitude  of  offerings ;  by  others,  still  more  simply,  to  the  multitude  of 
prayers  put  up  in  vain.  J.  D.  Michaelis  reads  my  sanctuary,  changes  s6  to 
iV,  and  takes  ££p  in  the  sense  of  the  corresponding  root  in  Arabic  :  c  then 
shall  he  come  to  my  sanctuary  and  in  it  shall  trust.'  iaipa  is  also  explained 
to  mean  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  by  Ephraem  Syrus,  Clericus,  Schmidius, 
and  Gill,  the  last  of  whom  asserts,  that  '  the  house  or  temple  of  an  idol  is 
never  called  a  sanctuary.'  But  see  Ezek.  28:  18.  Am.  7:  9,  13.  The 
same  explanation  of  T»ipa  is  erroneously  ascribed  by  Barnes  to  Kimchi. 
Solomon  Ben  Melech  makes  it  mean  the  palace  of  the  king,  and  Jarchi 
applies  rrsnn  ^s  nabs  to  the  weariness  of  the  defenders  with  fighting  from 
the  towers.  According  to  the  true  interpretation  of  the  verse,  the  last 
clause  may  either  represent  the  worshipper  as  passing  from  the  open  high 
place  to  the  shrine  or  temple  where  his  god  resided,  in  continuation  of  the 
same  religious  service,  or  it  may  represent  him  as  abandoning  the  ordinary 
altars,  and  resorting  to  some  noted  temple,  or  to  the  shrine  of  some  chief 
idol,  such  as  Chemosh  (1  Kings  11  :  17).  The  Septuagint  refers  Np  to 
the  idol  (he  shall  not  be  able  to  deliver  him),  but  as  this  had  not  been  pre- 
viously mentioned,  the  construction  is  a  harsh  one.  As  applied  to  Moab,  it 
does  not  mean  that  he  should  not  be  able  to  reach  or  to  enter  the  sanctuary 
on  account  of  his  exhaustion,  but  that  he  should  not  be  able  to  obtain 
what  he  desired,  or  indeed  to  effect  any  thing  whatever  by  his  prayers. 
Ewald  imagines  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence  to  have  been  lost  out  of  the 
text,  but  thinks  it  may  have  been  preserved  by  Jeremiah  in  the  words,  Moab 
shall  be  ashamed  of  Chemosh  (Jer.  48  :   13). 

V.  13.   This  is  the  word  which  Jehovah  spake  concerning  Moab  of  old. 
The  reference  is  not  to  what  follows  but  to  what  precedes.     Tas  does  not 


324  ISAIAH.  CHAP.  XVI. 

mean  since  the  date  of  the  foregoing  prophecy,  or  since  another  point  of 
time  not  specified — such  as  the  time  of  Balak,  or  of  Moab's  subjection  to 
Israel,  or  of  its  revolt — but  more  indefinitely,  heretofore,  of  old.  It  may  be 
applied  either  to  a  remote  or  a  recent  period,  and  is  frequently  used  by 
Isaiah  elsewhere,  in  reference  to  earlier  predictions.  The  same  contrast 
between  taa  and  hn»  occurs  in  2  Sam.  15 :  34.  "Oft  does  not  mean  a  sen- 
fence  but  a  prophecy.  Some  give  to  ba  its  usual  sense  to,  and  suppose  it  to 
point  out  Moab  as  the  object  of  address.  Others  give  it  the  strong  sense  of 
against.  But  it  is  best  to  understand  it  as  indicating  merely  the  theme  or 
subject  of  the  declaration. 

V.  14.  And  now  Jehovah  speaks  (or  has  spoken),  saying,  in  three 
years,  like  the  years  of  an  hireling,  the  glory  of  Moab  shall  be  disgraced, 
with  all  the  great  throng,  and  the  remnant  {shall  be)  small  and  few,  not 
much.  By  the  years  of  an  hireling  most  writers  understand  years  computed 
strictly  and  exactly,  with  or  without  allusion  to  the  eager  expectation  with 
which  hirelings  await  their  time,  and  their  joy  at  its  arrival,  or  to  the  hard- 
ships of  the  time  of  servitude.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  a  specific  refer- 
ence to  the  lunar  years  of  the  ancient  calendar,  as  being  shorter  than  the 
solar  years.  Knobel  supposes  three  years  to  be  put  for  a  small  number,  but 
this  indefinite  interpretation  seems  to  be  precluded  by  the  reference  to  the 
years  of  a  hireling.  The  glory  of  Moab  is  neither  its  wealth,  its  army,  its 
people,  nor  its  nobility  exclusively,  but  all  in  which  the  nation  gloried. 
The  a  before  ^a  does  not  mean  consisting  in,  or  notwithstanding,  but  with, 
including,  "pari  denotes  not  merely  a  great  number,  but  the  tumult  and 
confusion  of  a  crowd,  3*35  K"A  is  by  some  understood  to  mean  not  strong. 
It  was  possibly  intended  to  include  the  ideas  of  diminished  numbers  and 
diminished  strength. — As  the  date  of  this  prediction  is  not  given,  the  time 
of  its  fulfilment  is  of  course  uncertain.  Some  suppose  it  to  have  been  exe- 
cuted by  Tirhakah,  king  of  Ethiopia  (2  Kings  19  :  9)  ;  others  by  Shalmane- 
ser ;  others  by  Sennacherib ;  others  by  Esarhaddon  ;  others  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. These  last  of  course  suppose  that  the  verses  are  of  later  date 
than  the  time  of  Isaiah.  Henderson  regards  them  as  the  work  of  an  inspired 
writer  in  the  following  century.  That  the  final  downfall  of  Moab  was  to 
be  effected  by  the  Babylonians,  seems  clear  from  the  repetition  of  Isaiah's 
threatenings  by  Jeremiah  (ch.  48).  Some  indeed  suppose  that  an  earlier 
invasion  by  Assyria  is  here  foretold,  as  a  pledge  of  the  Babylonian  conquest 
which  had  been  predicted  in  the  foregoing  chapter.  But  this  supposition  of 
a  twofold  catastrophe  appears  to  be  too  artificial  and  complex.  Barnes 
understands  the  thirteenth  verse  to  mean  that  such  had  been  the  tenor  of 
the  prophecies  against  Moab  from  the  earliest  times,  which  were  now  to 
receive  their  final  accomplishment.     A  majority  of  writers  look  upon  vs.  13, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII.  325 

14,  as  a  postscript  or  appendix  by  Isaiah  to  an  earlier  prediction  of  his  own, 
or  of  some  older  prophet,  whom  Ilitzig  imagines  to  be  Jonah,  on  the  strength 
of  2  Kings  14:  25.  The  only  safe  conclusion  is  that  these  two  verses 
were  added  by  divine  command  in  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  that  if 
written  by  Isaiah  they  were  verified  in  some  of  the  Assyrian  expeditions 
which  were  frequent  at  that  period,  although  the  conquest  of  Moab  is  not 
explicitly  recorded  in  the  history. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


This  chapter  is  chiefly  occupied  with  a  prophecy  of  desolation  to  the 
kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Ephraim,  vs.  1-1 1.  It  closes  with  a  more  general 
threatening  against  the  enemies  of  Judah,  vs.  12—14.  Most  of  the  modern 
writers  regard  v.  12  as  the  beginning  of  a  new  and  distinct  prophecy,  ex- 
tending through  the  eighteenth  chapter,  and  relating  to  the  destruction  of 
Sennacherib's  host.  Some  of  the  older  writers  explain  vs.  12 — 14  as  a  di- 
rect continuation  of  the  prophecy  concerning  Syria  and  Israel.  Others 
treat  it  as  a  fragment,  or  an  independent  prophecy,  connected  neither  with 
the  seventeenth  nor  eighteenth  chapter.  In  favour  of  connecting  it  with 
eh.  17,  is  the  absence  of  any  distinctive  title  or  intimation  of  a  change  of 
subject.  In  favour  of  connecting  it  with  ch.  18,  is  the  similarity  of  form  in 
the  beginning  of  17:  12  and  18:  1.  The  still  stronger  resemblance  be- 
tween 17:  11  and  18:  15  seems  to  show  that  the  whole  is  a  continuous 
composition.  This  is,  at  least,  a  safer  conclusion,  and  one  more  favourable 
to  correct  interpretation,  than  the  extreme  of  mutilation  and  division,  to 
which  the  modern  criticism  uniformly  tends.  Less  exegetical  error  is  likely 
to  arise  from  combining  prophecies  really  distinct  than  from  separating  the 
parts  of  one  and  the  same  prophecy.  The  most  satisfactory  view  of  the 
whole  passage  is  that  it  was  meant  to  be  a  prophetic  picture  of  the  doom 
which  awaited  the  enemies  of  Judah,  and  that  while  many  of  its  expres- 
sions admit  of  a  general  application,  some  traits  in  the  description  are 
derived  from  particular  invasions  and  attacks.  Thus  Syria  and  Ephraim 
are  expressly  mentioned  in  the  first  part,  while  the  terms  of  the  last  three 
verses  are  more  appropriate  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Assyrian  host ;  but  as 
this  is  not  explicitly  referred  to,  there  is  no  need  of  regarding  it  as  the 
exclusive  subject  even  of  that  passage.  The  eighteenth  chapter  may  then 
be  treated  as  a  part  of  the  same  context.     In  the  first  part  of  ch.  17,  the 


326  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII. 


Prophet  represents  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Ephraim  as  sharing  the  same 
fate,  both  being  brought  to  desolation,  vs.  1-3.  He  then  describes  the 
desolation  of  Ephraim  especially,  by  the  figures  of  a  harvest  and  a  gather- 
ing of  olives,  in  which  little  is  left  to  be  afterwards  gleaned,  vs.  4 — 6.  As 
the  effect  of  these  judgments,  he  describes  the  people  as  renouncing  their 
idols  and  returning  to  Jehovah,  vs.  7,  8.  He  then  resumes  his  description 
of  the  threatened  desolation,  and  ascribes  it  to  the  general  oblivion  of  God, 
and  cultivation  of  strange  doctrines  and  practices,  vs.  9-11.  This  last 
might  be  regarded  as  a  simple  repetition  of  the  threatenings  in  vs.  4-6,  in- 
terrupted by  the  promise  in  vs.  7,  8.  But  as  the  desolation  of  Syria  and 
Israel  was  actually  effected  by  successive  strokes  or  stages,  as  Shalmaneser 
accomplished  what  Tiglath-pileser  had  begun,  and  as  history  records  a  par- 
tial conversion  of  the  Israelites  from  their  apostasy  between  these  two 
attacks,  it  is  altogether  natural  to  understand  the  prophecy  as  exhibiting  this 
sequence  of  events.  In  the  close  of  the  chapter,  the  Prophet  first  describes 
a  gathering  of  nations,  and  then  their  dispersion  by  divine  rebuke,  which  he 
declares  to  be  the  doom  of  all  who  attack  or  oppress  God's  people,  vs. 
12-14. 

V.  1.  The  Burden  of  Damascus.  Behold,  Damascus  is  removed  from 
(being)  a  city,  and  is  a  heap,  a  ruin.  On  the  meaning  of  burden,  vide  su- 
pra, ch.  13 :  1.  The  modern  Germans  suppose  the  first  words  to  have  been 
added  by  a  copyist  or  compiler,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  appropriate,  as 
a  title,  only  to  the  first  few  verses.  Some  have  defended  the  correctness  of 
the  title,  on  the  ground  that  Ephraim  is  only  mentioned  as  an  ally  of  Syria, 
or  that  Damascus  is  again  included  in  the  threatenings  of  vs.  9-11.  The 
true  answer  seems  to  be,  that  the  objection  confounds  these  prophetic  inscrip- 
tions with  the  titles  or  headings  of  modern  composition.  The  latter  are 
comprehensive  summaries,  entirely  distinct  from  the  text ;  the  former  are  an 
original  part  of  it.  The  one  before  us  is  equivalent  to  saying,  '  I  have  a 
threatening  to  announce  against  Damascus.'  Such  an  expression  would  not 
imply  that  no  other  subject  was  to  be  introduced,  nor  would  the  introduction 
of  another  subject  justify  the  rejection  of  the  prefatory  formula  as  incorrect 
and  therefore  spurious.  Not  a  little  of  the  slashing  criticism  now  in  vogue 
rests  upon  a  forced  application  of  modern  or  occidental  usages  to  ancient  and 
oriental  writings.  The  idiomatic  phrase  removed  from  d  city  is  not  to  be 
explained  as  an  ellipsis  for  removed  from  (the  number  of)  cities,  in  which 
case  the  plural  form  would  be  essential.  It  rather  means  removed  from  (the 
state  or  condition  of)  a  city,  or,  as  Jarchi  completes  the  construction,  from 
(being)  a  city.  Compare  ch.  7 :  8,  and  1  Sam.  J  5 :  26.  Knobel  need- 
lessly and  harshly  explains  Damascus  as  the  name  of  the  people,  who  are 
then  described  as  being  literally  removed  from  the  city.     J.  D.  Michaelis 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII.  •      327 

still  more  extravagantly,  makes  WB  a  noun  and  T»$tt  a  participle     Behold 
Damascus !    punishment  awakes  I      ":*2  occurs   only  here,   and  seems  to 
have  been  used  instead  of  the  cognate  *s  on  account  of  its  resemblance  to 
W2.     The  last  two  words  are  probably  in  apposition  rather  than  in  regi- 
men (acervus  ruinae)  or  in  concord  as  an  adjective  and  substantive  (a  ruinous 
lnap).     The  radical  idea  in  the  first  is  that  of  overturning,  in  the  other  that 
of  falling.     Some  regard  this  and  the  next  two  verses  as  a  description  of 
the  past,  and  infer  that  the  prophecy  is  subsequent  in  date  to  the  conquest 
of  Damascus  and  Syria.     But  as  the  form  of  expression  leaves  this  undeter- 
mined, it  is  better  to  regard  the  whole  as  a  prediction.     Damascus  is  still 
the  most  flourishing  city  in  Western  Asia.     It  is  also  one  of  the  most  an- 
cient.    It  is  here  mentioned  as  the  capital  of  a  kingdom,  called  Syria  of 
Damascus  to  distinguish  it  from  other  Syrian  principalities,  and  founded  in 
the  reign  of  David  by  Rezon  (1  Kings  11:  23,  24).     It  was  commonly  at 
war  with  Israel,  particularly  during  the  reign  of  Benhadad  and  Hazael,  so 
that  a  three  years'  peace  is  recorded  as  a  long  one  (1  Kings  22  :  1).     Under 
Rezin,  its  last  king,  Syria  joined  with  Ephraim  against  Judah,  during  which 
confederacy,  i.  e.  in  the  first  years  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  this  prophecy  was 
probably  uttered.     From  the  resemblance  of  the  names  Rezon  and  Rezin, 
Vitringa   takes  occasion  to  make  the   following   extraordinary  statement. 
*  Omnis  docet  historia  mundi  passim  accidere,  lusu  quodam  singulari  Provi- 
dentiae  Divinae,  ut  regna  et  imperia  iisdem  vel  similibus  nominibus  oriantur 
et  occidant.'     Damascus  appears  to  have  experienced  more  vicissitudes  than 
any  other  ancient  city  except  Jerusalem.     After  the  desolation  here  pre- 
dicted it  was  again  rebuilt,  and  again   destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  not- 
withstanding which  it  reappears  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  flourishing  city 
and  a  seat  of  government.     In  the  verse  before  us,  the  reference  may  be 
chiefly  to  its  downfall  as  a  royal  residence. 

V.  2.  Forsaken  (are)  the  cities  of  Aroer  ;  for  flocks  shall  they  be, 
and  they  shall  lie  down,  and  there  shall  be  no  one  making  (them)  afraid. 
There  are  three  Aroers  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  Bible  ;  one  in  the  territory 
of  Judah  (1  Sam.  30  :  28),  one  at  the  southern  extremity  of  the  land  of  Israel 
east  of  Jordan  (Jos.  12:2.  13 :  6),  and  a  third  further  north  near  to  Rab- 
bah  (Jos.  13  :  25.  Num.  32  :  24).  Some  suppose  a  fourth  in  Syria,  in  order 
to  explain  the  text  before  us,  while  others  understand  it  as  the  name  of  a 
province  in  that  kingdom.  Vitringa  thinks  it  either  means  the  plain  or  val- 
ley of  Damascus,  or  Damascus  itself,  so  called  because  divided  and  sur- 
rounded by  the  Chrysorroas,  as  one  of  the  Aroers  was  by  the  Arnon  (Josh. 
12:  2).  It  is  now  commonly  agreed  that  the  place  meant  is  the  northern 
Aroer  east  of  Jordan,  and  that  its  cities  are  the  towns  around  it  and  perhaps 
dependent  on  it.  An  analogous  expression  is  the  cities  of  Heshbon  (Jos. 
13:  17).     Knobel,   however,   understands  the   phrase   to   mean   the  cities 


328      •  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII. 

Aroer,  i.  e.  both  the  towns  of  that  name,  put  for  all  the  towns  east  of  Jordan, 
on  account  of  the  resemblance  of  the  name  to  "ns,  and  perhaps  with  allusion 
to  the  sense  of  nakedness,  belonging  to  the  root.  Thus  understood,  this 
verse  predicts  the  desolation  of  Ephraim  and  not  of  Syria.  It  is  possible, 
however,  that  as  well  on  account  of  their  contiguity,  as  of  the  league  be- 
tween them,  they  are  here,  as  in  ch.  7:16,  confounded  or  intentionally 
merged  in  one.  At  all  times,  it  is  probable,  the  boundaries  between  these 
adjacent  states  were  fluctuating  and  uncertain.  This  accounts  for  the  fact 
that  the  same  place  is  spoken  of  at  different  times  as  belonging  to  Israel,  to 
Moab,  to  Ammon,  and  to  Syria.  Forsaken  probably  means  emptied  of 
their  people  and  left  desolate.  There  is  then  a  specific  reference  to  depor^ 
tation  and  exile. 

V.  3.  Then  shall  cease  defence  from  Ephraim  and  royalty  from  Da- 
mascus and  the  rest  of  Syria.  Like  the  glory  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall 
they  be,  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts.  *-iEn?a  may  be  taken  in  its  usual  specific 
sense  of  a  fortified  place,  meaning  either  Damascus  (as  a  protection  of  the 
ten  tribes)  or  Samaria  (Mic.  1:  5).  Some  disregard  the  masoretic  interpunc- 
tion,  and  connect  the  rest  of  Syria  with  the  verb  in  the  last  clause :  the 
rest  of  Syria  shall  be  etc.  ^sua  may  either  mean  the  whole  of  Syria  besides 
Damascus,  or  the  remnant  left  by  the  Assyrian  invaders.  The  latter  agrees 
best  with  the  terms  of  the  comparison.  What  was  left  of  Syria  should  re- 
semble what  was  left  of  the  glory  of  Israel.  Houbigant  and  Lowth  gratui- 
tously read  rsiu  pride,  in  order  to  obtain  a  parallel  expression  to  Tina.  The 
glory  of  Israel  is  not  Samaria,  nor  does  it  denote  wealth  or  population  ex- 
clusively, but  all  that  constitutes  the  greatness  of  a  people.  (Vide  supra, 
ch.  5:  14.)  Jerome  and  others  regard  glory  as  an  ironical  and  sarcastic 
expression  ;  but  it  seems  to  mean  simply  what  is  left  of  their  former  glory. 

V.  4.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day,  the  glory  of  Jacob 
shall  be  brought  low  (or  made  weak),  and  the  fatness  of  his  flesh  shall  be 
made  lean.  This  is  not  a  mere  transition  from  Syria  to  Ephraim,  nor  a 
mere  extension  of  the  previous  threatenings  to  the  latter,  but  an  explanation 
of  the  comparison  in  the  verse  preceding.  The  remnant  of  Ephraim  was  to 
be  like  the  glory  of  Israel  ;  but  how  was  that?  This  verse  contains  the 
answer.  Glory,  as  before,  includes  all  that  constitutes  the  strength  of  a 
people,  and  is  here  contrasted  with  a  state  of  weakness.  The  same  idea  is 
expressed  in  the  last  clause  by  the  figure  of  emaciation.  The  image,  as  Gill 
says,  is  that  of  "  a  man  in  a  consumption,  that  is  become  a  mere  skeleton, 
and  reduced  to  skin  and  bones."  Jacob  does  not  mean  Judah  (Eichhorn) 
but  the  ten  tribes.  Hendewerk  refers  the  suffix  in  the  last  clause  to  lias, 
and  infers  that  the  latter  must  denote  a  human  subject.     Junius  regards  the 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XVII. 

sentence  as  unfinished :  '  in  the  day  when  the  glory  etc.  then  it  shall  be 
(v.  5)  etc.'  Cocceius  makes  this  the  beginning  of  a  promise  of  deliverance 
to  Judth  ;  *  in  that  day,  it  is  true,  (quidem),  the  glory  of  Jacob  shall  be  re- 
duced etc.  but  (v.  5)  etc.  Both  these  constructions  supply  something  not 
expressed,  and  gratuitously  suppose  a  sentence  of  unusual  length. 

V.  5.  And  it  shall  be  like   the  gathering  of  (or  as  one  gathers)  the 
harvest,  the  standing  corn,  and   his  arm  reaps  the  ears.     And  it  shall  be 
like  one  collecting  ears  in  the  valley  of  Rephaim.     The  first  verb  is  not  to 
be  rendered  he  shall  be  (i.  e.  Israel,  or  the  king  of  Assyria),  but  to  be  con- 
strued impersonally,  it  shall  be  or  come  to  pass.     Some  suppose  the  first 
clause  to  describe  the  act  of  reaping,  and  the  second  that  of  gleaning. 
Others  regard  both  as  descriptive  of  the  same  act,  a  particular  place  being 
mentioned  in  the  last  clause  to  give  life  to  the  description.     The  valley  of 
Rephaim  or  the  Giants  extends  from  Jerusalem  to  the  south-west  in  the  di- 
rection of  Bethlehem.     There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  here  mentioned.     Aben  Ezra  and  Ewald  suppose   it  to  be 
named  as  a  barren  spot,  producing  scanty  harvests,  and  gleanings  in  propor- 
tion.    Most  writers,  on   the  contrary,  assume  it  to  have  been  remarkably 
fertile.     Vitringa  imagines  at  the  same  time  an  allusion  to  the  level  surface, 
as  admitting  of  a  more  complete  and  thorough  clearing  by  the  reaper  than 
uneven  grounds.     If  we  consider  the  passage  without  reference  to  imaginary 
facts,  the  most  natural  conclusion  is  that  the  valley  of  Rephaim  was  men- 
tioned as  a  spot  near  to  Jerusalem  and  well  known  to  the  people,  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  a  specific  character  to  the  general   description  or  allusion 
of  the  first  clause.     There  is  no  proof  that  it  was  remarkable  either  for  fer- 
tility or  barrenness.     Some  of  the  commentators  represent  it  as  now  waste  ; 
but  Robinson  speaks  of  it,  en  passant,  as  "the  cultivated  valley  or  plain  of 
Rephaim."   (Palestine  I.  323. )     Some  refer   cjds  to  the  act  of  gathering 
the  stalks  in  one  hand,  in  order  to  cut  them  with  the  other ;  but  this  is  a 
needless  refinement.     The  Hebrew  verb  probably  denotes  the  whole  act  of 
reaping.     There  are  several  different  ways  of  construing  vxp.    Some  make 
rvzp  agree  with  it  as  a  feminine  noun  (the  standing  harvest),  which  is  con- 
trary to  usage.     Umbreit  explains   it  as  an  adverb  of  time  (in  harvest), 
which  is  very  forced.     Gesenius  adopts  Aben  Ezra's  explanation  of  the 
word  as  equivalent  in  meaning  to  ^sp  or  'TOjj  ti^x.     Some  make  vxp  itself 
a  verbal  noun  analogous  in  form  and  sense  to  D*4to  WD  etc.     Ewald  makes 
the  season  of  harvest  (Erntezeit)  the  subject  of  the  verb  ;  as  when  the  har- 
vest-season gathers  etc.     Perhaps  the  simplest  supposition  is  that  ns;?  is  in 
apposition  with  vx^,  not  as  a  mere  synonyme,  but  as  a  more  specific  term, 
the  crop,  the  standing  corn.     The   suffix  in   wnt  then  refers  to  the  indefi- 
nite subject  of  the  first  clause.     According  to  Cocceius,  the  point  of  the  com- 


330  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XVII. 

parison  is  the  care  and  skill  with  which  the  grain  is  gathered  to  be  stored 
away ;  in  like  manner  God  would  cause  his  people  to  be  gathered  for  their 
preservation.  All  other  writers  understand  the  figures  as  denoting  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  judgment  threatened  against  Israel. 

V.  6.  And  gleanings  shall  be  left  therein  like  the  heating  (or  shaking) 
of  an  olive  tree,  two'  (or)  three  berries  in  the  top  of  a  high  bough,  four 
(or)  Jive  in  the  branches  of  the  fruit-tree,  saith  Jehovah  God  of  Israel, 
There  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  custom  of  beating  the  unripe  olives  from  the 
tree  for  the  purpose  of  making  oil.  Those  described  as  left  may  either  be  the 
few  left  to  ripen  for  eating,  or  the  few  overlooked  by  the  gatherer  or  beyond 
his  reach.  The  common  version  of  ni^bs  (gleaning  grapes)  is  too  restricted, 
and  presents  the  incongruity  of  grapes  upon  an  olive-tree.  The  transition 
from  the  figure  of  a  harvest  to  that  of  an  olive-gathering  may  be  intended 
simply  to  vary  and  multiply  the  images,  or,  as  Hitzig  supposes,  to  com- 
plete the  illustration  which  would  otherwise  have  been  defective,  because 
the  reaper  is  followed  by  the  gleaner  who  completes  the  ingathering  at  once, 
whereas  the  olive-gatherer  leaves  some  of  course.  The  verb  nx^ja  is  mascu- 
line and  singular,  as  in  many  other  cases  where  the  subject  follows.  The 
suffix  in  13  refers  of  course  to  Jacob  or  Israel,  i.  e.  the  ten  tribes.  Two,  three, 
four,  and  five,  are  used,  as  in  other  languages,  for  an  indefinite  small  num- 
ber or  a  few.  All  interpreters  agree  that  the  idea  of  height  is  essentially 
included  in  "TO*.  Aben  Ezra  connects  it  with  the  Arabic  ^jyo)  (Emir)  from 
which,  says  Gill,  "  the  word  amiral  or  admiral  comes."  Most  writers  give  the 
Hebrew  the  specific  sense  of  high  or  highest  branch  ;  Henderson  that  of 
lofty  tree  ;  Gesenius  the  more  general  sense  of  top  or  summit,  in  order  to 
accommodate  his  explanation  of  the  same  word  in  v.  9.  The  combination 
head  of  the  top  would  then  be  emphatic,  though  unusual  and  scarcely  natu- 
ral. The  suffix  in  s-nssD  is  treated  by  Gesenius  as  superfluous,  and  by 
others  as  belonging  proleptically  to  the  next  word.  Some  of  the  older 
writers  make  h^flb  agree  with  it  (in  its  fruitful  branches),  but  the  words  differ 
both  in  gender  and  number.  The  latest  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  the 
expression  literally  means  in  the  branches  of  it,  the  fruit-tree,  the  it  being 
unnecessary  in  any  other  idiom.  The  irregularity  is  wholly  but  arbitrarily 
removed  by  Hitzig's  division  of  the  words  rrnsri  wo.  This  verse  is  re- 
garded by  Cocceius  as  a  promise  to  the  people,  by  others  as  a  promise  to 
the  pious  Jews  and  especially  to  Hezekiah,  but  by  most  interpreters  as 
describing  the  extent  to  which  the  threatened  judgment  would  be  carried. 
Thegleanings,  then,  are  not  the  pious  remnant,  but  the  ignoble  refuse  who 
survived  the  deportation  of  the  ten  tribes  by  the  Assyrians. 

V.  7.  In  that  day  man  shall  turn  to  his  Maker,  and  his  eyes  to  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel  shall  look.     Grotius  and  Junius  make  this  an  advice  or 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII.  331 

exhortation — let  him  look — but  there,  is  no  ground  for  departing  from  the 
strict  sense  of  the  words  as  a  prediction,  bs  IWtp  occurs  again  below  (ch. 
31  :  1)  in  the  sense  of  looking  to  any  one  for  help,  which  implies  trust  or 
confidence.  The  Septuagint  accordingly  has  here  mnoiQtog.  Jarchi  ex- 
plains the  phrase  as  equivalent  to  ba  n:D'\  The  article  before  d*ix  gives  it 
a  generic  not  a  specific  sense.  It  does  not  therefore  mean  every  man  or  the 
people  in  general  (Banies),  but  man  indefinitely.  It  is  commonly  agreed 
that  Maker  is  here  used  in  a  pregnant  sense  to  describe  God,  not  merely  as 
the  natural  creator  of  mankind,  but  as  the  maker  of  Israel,  the  author  of 
their  privileges,  and  their  covenant  God.  (Compare  Deut.  32 :  6.)  The 
same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  parallel  phrase,  Holy  One  of  Israel,  for  the 
import  of  which  vide  supra,  ch.  1:4.  Some  refer  this  verse  partially  or 
wholly  to  the  times  of  the  New  Testament,  others  more  correctly  to  the 
effect  of  the  preceding  judgments  on  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel.  It  is  matter 
of  history,  that  after  the  Assyrian  conquest  and  the  general  deportation  of 
the  people,  many  accepted  Hezekiah's  invitation  and  returned  to  the  worship 
of  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem  (2  Chron.  30:  11);  and  this  reformation  is 
alluded  to  as  still  continued  in  the  times  of  Josiah  (2  Chron.  34 :  9).  At 
the  same  time  the  words  may  be  intended  to  suggest  that  a  similar  effect 
might  be  expected  to  result  from  similar  causes  in  later  times. 

V.  8.  And  he  shall  not  turn  (or  look)  to  the  altars,  the  work  of  his 
own  hands,  and  that  which  his  own  fingers  have  made  shall  he  not  regard, 
and  the  groves  (or  images  of  AshtoretK)  and  the  pillars  (or  images)  of 
the  sun.  The  positive  declaration  of  the  preceding  verse  is  negatively  ex- 
pressed in  this,  with  a  particular  mention  of  the  objects  which  had  usurped 
the  place  of  God.  Kimchi's  superficial  observation,  that  even  God's  altar 
was  the  work  of  men's  hands,  and  that  this  phrase  must  therefore  denote 
idols,  is  adopted  by  Clericus  (aras  erectas  operi  manuum)  and  by  Lowth, 
who  observes  that  "  all  the  ancient  versions  and  most  of  the  modern  have 
mistaken  it,"  and  then  goes  on  to  say  that  rittha  is  not  in  apposition  with 
mrcTsn  but  governed  by  it ;  a  construction  precluded  by  the  definite  article 
before  the  latter  word.  The  true  explanation  is  that  given  by  Calvin,  and 
adopted  by  most  later  writers,  viz.  that  idol-altars  are  described  as  the 
work  of  men's  hands,  because  erected  by  their  sole  authority,  whereas  the 
altar  at  Jerusalem  was,  in  the  highest  sense,  the  work  of  God  himself.  Vi- 
tringa  arbitrarily  explains  the  next  clause  (what  their  fingers  have  made)  as 
synonymous  neither  with  what  goes  before  nor  with  what  follows,  but  as 
denoting  the  household  gods  of  the  idolaters.  The  old  writers  take  &**£* 
always  in  the  sense  of  groves,  i.  e.  such  as  were  used  for  idol-worship.  It 
has  been  shown,  however,  by  Selden,  Spencer,  Gesenius,  and  others,  that 
in  some  places  this  sense  is  inadmissible,  as  when  the  i*ni2K  is  said  to  have 


332  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII. 

stood  upon  an  altar,  or  under  a  tree,  or  to  have  been  brought  out  of  a  temple 
(1  Kings  14 :  23.  2  Chron.  34 :  4).  The  modern  writers,  therefore,  under- 
stand it  as  denoting  the  goddess  of  fortune  or  happiness  (from  *im  to  be 
prosperous),  otherwise  called  Ashtoreth,  the  Phenician  Venus,  extensively 
worshipped  in  conjunction  with  Baal.  But  according  to  Movers,  the  Hebrew 
word  denotes  a  straight  or  upright  pillar.  Ewald  adheres  to  the  old  inter- 
pretation (Gotzenhainer).  d^s^n  is  a  derivative  of  Man,  which  properly 
means  solar  heat,  but  is  poetically  used  to  denote  the  sun  itself.  This  obvious 
etymology,  and  the  modern  discovery  of  Punic  cippi  inscribed  to  "pan  bs::, 
Baal  the  Sun  (or  Solar),  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  word  before  us  sig- 
nifies images  of  Baal,  worshipped  as  the  representative  of  the  sun.  From 
the  same  etymology,  Montanus  derives  the  meaning,  loca  aprica,  and  Junius 
that  of  statuas  subdiales.  The  explanation  of  the  word,  as  meaning  suns  or 
solar  images,  is  as  old  as  Kimchi., 

V.  9.  In  that  day  shall  his  fortified  cities  be  like  what  is  left  in  the 
thicket  and  the  lofty  branch,  (namely  the  cities)  which  they  leave  (as  they 
retire)  from  before  the  children  of  Israel,  and  (the  land)  shall  be  a  waste. 
It  is  universally  agreed  that  the  desolation  of  the  ten  tribes  is  here  described 
by  a  comparison,  but  as  to  the  precise  form  and  meaning  of  the  sentence 
there  is  great  diversity  of  judgment.  Some  suppose  the  strongest  towns  to 
be  here  represented  as  no  better  defended  than  an  open  forest.  Others  on 
the  contrary  understand  the  strong  towns  alone  to  be  left,  the  others  being 
utterly  destroyed.  WITS  is  variously  understood  to  mean  what  is  left  o^  and 
what  is  left  in.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  make  Horesh  and  Amir  proper 
names,  the  former  identical  with  Harosheth-goim  (Judges  4  :  2,  13,  16),  the 
latter  with  the  'A^ov&a  of  Josephus  or  the  'Avt'Q&  of  Eusebius.  Symrna- 
chus,  Aquila,  and  Theodotion  all  retained  the  word  1*»13fc,  and  Theodotion 
Ein  also.  The  Septuagint  renders  the  words  ol  'ApoQoaioi  xcu  ol  EvuToi.  For 
the  first  the  Peshito  has  Heres.  The  last  two  versions  Vitringa  connects 
by  a  reference  to  the  statement  (Judg.  1  :  35)  that  the  Amorites  would 
dwell  in  Mount  Heres.  Ewald  explains  the  Septuagint  version  on  the 
ground  that  the  old  Canaanites  divided  themselves  into  the  two  great  classes 
of  Amorites  (mountaineers),  and  Hittites  (lowlanders)  or  Hivites  (villagers). 
Jerome  translates  the  words  aratra  et  segetes.  Cappellus  also  has  arationis. 
Most  writers  give  vajt  the  sense  it  has  in  v.  6,  and  WVy  that  of  a  thick 
forest,  or  more  specifically  its  underwood  or  thickets.  Here  as  before,  Hen- 
derson understands  by  "i^ax  a  high  tree,  and  Gesenius  the  summit  of  a  hill. 
From  the  combination  of  these  various  verbal  explanations  have  arisen  two 
principal  interpretations  of  the  whole  verse,  or  at  least  of  the  comparison 
which  it  contains.  The  first  supposes  the  forsaken  cities  of  Ephraim  to  be 
here  compared  with  those  which  the  Canaanites  forsook  when  they  fled  before 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XVII.  333 

the  Israelites  under  Joshua,  or  with  the  forests  which  the  Israelites  left 
unoccupied  after  the  conquest  of  the  country.  The  same  essential  mean- 
ing is  retained  by  others  who  suppose  the  prophet  to  allude  to  the  overthrow 
of  Sisera  by  Deborah  and  Barak.  The  other  interpretation  supposes  no 
historical  allusion,  but  a  comparison  of  the  approaching  desolation  with  the 
neglected  branches  of  a  tree  or  forest  that  is  felled,  or  a  resumption  of  the 
figure  of  the  olive-tree  in  v.  6.  This  last  is  strongly  recommended  by  its  great 
simplicity,  by  its  superseding  all  gratuitous  assumptions  beyond  what  is  ex- 
pressed, and  by  its  taking  n^x  in  the  same  sense  which  it  has  above.  An- 
other disputed  point  is  the  construction  of  -rx,  which  some  refer  to  the 
immediate  antecedent,  others  less  simply  but  more  correctly  to  in:?B  *n*. 

V.  10.  Because  thou  hast  forgotten  the  God  of  thy  salvation,  and  the 
Rock  of  thy  strength  hast  not  remembered,  therefore  thou  wilt  plant  plants  of 
pleasantness  (or  pleasant  plantations)  and  with  a  strange  slip  set  it.  Some 
render  ^  at  the  beginning  for,  and  understand  the  first  clause  as  giving  a 
reason  for  what  goes  before  ;  but  the  emphatic  "p  bs  in  the  second  clause 
seems  to  require  that  ^d  should  have  the  meaning  of  because,  and  introduce 
the  reason  for  what  follows.  The  sense,  then,  is  not  merely  that  because 
they  forgot  God  they  were  desolate,  but  that  because  they  forgot  God  they 
fell  into  idolatry,  and  on  that  account  were  given  up  to  desolation. 
Some  regard  the  second  clause  of  this  verse  and  the  whole  of  the  next  as  a 
description  of  their  punishment.  Because  they  forgot  God,  they  should 
sow  and  plant,  but  only  for  others  ;  the  fruit  should  be  gathered  not  by  them- 
selves but  by  their  enemies  (Barbarus  has  segetes  et  culta  novalia  habebit). 
Others  suppose  the  description  of  the  sin  to  be  continued  through  this  verse 
and  the  first  clause  of  the  next.  Because  they  forgot  God,  they  planted  to 
please  themselves,  and  introduced  strange  plants  into  their  vineyard.  On 
the  latter  hypothesis,  the  planting  is  a  metaphor  for  the  culture  and  propa- 
gation of  corrupt  opinions  and  practices,  especially  idolatry  and  illicit  inter- 
course with  heathen  nations.  According  to  the  other  view,  the  planting  is 
to  be  literally  understood,  and  the  evil  described  is  the  literal  fulfilment  of 
the  threatening  in  Deut.  28  :  39.  The  latter  sense  is  given  by  most  of  the 
early  writers.  Cocceius,  who  seems  first  to  have  proposed  the  other, 
thought  it  necessary  to  translate  ran  as  a  preterite  (plantabas),  which  is  un- 
grammatical  and  arbitrary.  The  same  general  sense  may  be  attained  with- 
out departing  from  the  future  form,  by  making  the  last  clause  of  v.  10  a  pre- 
diction of  what  they  would  hereafter  do,  without  excluding  the  idea  that 
they  had  done  so  already,  and  were  actually  doing  it.  It  is  not  even  neces- 
sary to  read  with  Grotius  quamris plantavvris,  or  with  Henderson  thou  mayest 
plant,  or  wilh  Umbreit  lass  nur  tvachsen,  although  these  translations  really 
convey  the  true  sense  of  the  clause.     It  is  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  older 


334  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII. 


and  more  literal  interpretation,  that  the  evil  threatened  is  too  insignificant 
for  such  a  context.  This  objection  might  be  abated  by  supposing  the  fruit- 
less cultivation  to  be  not  strictly  literal,  but  a  figure  for  disappointment  or 
labour  in  vain  generally.  On  the  whole,  however,  it  seems  best  to  acqui- 
esce in  the  opinion  now  very  commonly  adopted,  that  the  planting  here 
described  is  the  sin  of  the  people,  not  their  punishment.  Jerome  confounds 
tra^sa  with  wnm,Jideles9  i.  e.  not  disappointing  expectation.  The  Septu- 
agint  strangely  gives  an  opposite  meaning  (cpvzevfia  aniGxov),  which  is  re- 
garded by  some  as  a  mere  blunder,  by  others  as  an  arbitrary  change,  and 
by  others  as  an  error  in  the  text.  The  older  writers  make  the  Hebrew 
word  an  adjective  agreeing  with  vines,  fruits,  or  some  other  noun  understood. 
It  is  now  commonly  explained  as  an  abstract,  meaning  pleasantness,  and  the 
whole  phrase  as  equivalent  to  pleasant  or  favourite  plants.  A  similar  con- 
struction occurs  in  the  last  clause,  where  slip  or  shoot  of  a  stranger  is  equi- 
valent to  a  strange  slip  or  shoot.  Those  who  think  a  literal  planting  to  be 
meant,  understand  strange  to  signify  exotic,  foreign,  and  by  implication  val- 
uable, costly ;  but  upon  the  supposition  that  a  moral  or  spiritual  planting  is 
intended,  it  has  its  frequent  emphatic  sense  of  alien  from  God,i.  e.  wicked, 
or  more  specifically  idolatrous.  Cocceius  takes  sntn  as  the  third  person, 
which  is  forbidden  by  the  preceding  second  person  son.  The  suffix  in  the 
last  word  may  be  most  naturally  referred  to  vineyard,  garden,  or  a  like  word 
understood.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  others  suppose  an  allusion  in  this  last 
clause  to  the  process  of  grafting  with  a  view  to  the  improvement  of  the  stock. 
The  foreign  growth  introduced  is  understood  by  some  to  be  idolatry,  by 
others  foreign  alliance ;  but  these  two  things,  as  we  have  seen  before,  were 
inseparably  blended  in  the  history  and  policy  of  Israel.  (Vide  supra,  ch. 
2 :  6-8.) 

V.  11.  In  the  day  of  thy  planting  thou  wilt  hedge  it  in,  and  in  the 
morning  thou  wilt  make  thy  seed  to  blossom,  (but)  away  flies  the  crop  in  a 
day  of  grief  and  desperate  sorrow.  The  older  writers  derive  "tnbafcrt  from 
aaa,  and  explain  it  to  mean  cause  to  grow.  The  modern  lexicographers  as- 
sume a  root  Mio  equivalent  to  T\^,  to  enclose  with  a  hedge.  Either  sense 
is  appropriate  as  describing  a  part  of  the  process  of  culture.  In  the  morning 
is  commonly  explained  as  an  idiomatic  phrase  for  early,  which  some  refer  to 
the  rapidity  of  growth,  and  others  to  the  assiduity  of  the  cultivator,  neither 
of  which  senses  is  exclusive  of  the  other,  la  is  elsewhere  a  noun  meaning 
a  heap,  and  is  so  explained  here  by  the  older  writers  :  the  harvest  (shall  be) 
a  heap,  i.  e.  a  small  or  insufficient  one.  Vitringa  derives  ia  from  "na,  to 
lament,  and  translates  it  comploratio.  Others  give  it  the  sense  of  shaking, 
agitation.  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  make  it  the  preterite  of  n^ia  to 
flee  (in   form  like  rua).     i">^,5,  as  pointed  in  the  common  text,  is  a  noun 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII.  335 

meaning  inheritance,  possession,  and  most  of  the  older  writers  understand 
fibm  cnn  to  mean  in  the  day  of  expected  jwssession.  The  latest  writers 
for  the  most  part  read  ribns  which  is  properly  the  passive  participle  of  r&n, 
but  is  used  as  a  noun  in  the  sense  of  deadly  wound  or  disease,  here  employed 
as  a  figure  for  extreme  distress.  Even  Jarchi  explains  it  by  the  phrase  o*P 
tt\&t  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  titifej  nxs,  which  the  Seventy  seem  to 
have  read  eiisx  ax3,  like  the  father  of  a  man.  Kimchi  appears  to  assume 
an  antithesis  in  each  of  these  verses  between  the  original  and  degenerate 
state  of  Israel :  at  first  thou  didst  plant  pleasant  plants,  but  now  thou  hast 
set  strange  slips  ;  at  first  thou  didst  make  it  to  flourish,  but  now  the  harvest 
etc.  This,  though  ingenious,  is  entirely  arbitrary  and  gratuitous.  The 
usual  and  simple  construction  of  the  sentence  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense. 

V.  12.  Hark  !  the  noise  of  many  nations  !  Like  the  noise  of  the  sea 
they,  make  a  noise.  And  the  rush  of  peoples  !  Like  the  rush  of  mighty 
waters  they  arc  rushing.  The  diversity  of  judgments,  as  to  the  connexion 
of  these  verses  (12-14)  with  the  context,  has  been  already  stated  in  the 
introduction.  By  different  interpreters  they  are  explained,  as  a  direct  con- 
tinuation of  the  foregoing  prophecy  (J.  D.  Michaelis) — as  a  later  addition 
or  appendix  to  it  (Hitzig) — as  a  fragment  of  a  larger  poem  (Rosenmiiller) — 
as  an  independent  prophecy  (Lowth) — as  the  beginning  of  that  contained 
in  the  next  chapter  (Gesenius) — and  as  equally  connected  with  what  goes 
before  and  follows  (Vitringa).  That  the  passage  is  altogether  broken  and 
detached,  and  unconnected  with  what  goes  before  (Barnes),  it  is  as  easy  to 
deny  as  to  affirm.  On  the  whole,  the  safest  ground  to  assume  is  that  already 
stated  in  the  introduction,  viz.  that  the  two  chapters  form  a  single  prophecy 
or  prophetic  picture  of  the  doom  awaiting  all  the  enemies  of  Judah,  with 
particular  allusion  to  particular  enemies  in  certain  parts.  *M  is  variously  ex- 
plained as  a  particle  of  cursing  (Luther),  of  pity  for  the  sufferings  of  God's 
people  (Calvin),  of  wonder  (Hitzig),  or  of  simple  invocation  (Vitringa). 
Henderson  understands  it  as  directing  attention  to  the  sound  described, 
which  the  prophet  is  supposed  to  be  actually  hearing,  an  idea  which  Augusti 
happily  expresses  by  translating  the  word  hark !  This  descriptive  character 
of  the  passage  allows  and  indeed  requires  the  verbs  to  be  translated  in  the 
present  tense.  fMMi  most  frequently  denotes  a  multitude ;  but  here,  being 
connected  with  the  future  and  infinitive  of  its  root  (n-ar-i),  it  seems  to  have 
its  primary  sense  of  noise  or  tumult.  D*^  may  either  denote  great  (Luther) 
or  many  (Calvin)  ;  but  the  latter  is  preferred  by  most  interpreters,  and  is 
most  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  word.  yWtt)  is  not  simply  noise 
or  sound  (Montanus),  but  more  specifically  a  roaring  (Lowth)  or  a  rushing 
(Augusti).  The  sense  of  storm  (Cocceius)  is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by 
usage.     The  nations   meant  are  not  Gog  and  Magog  (Castalio),  nor  Syria 


336  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII. 

and  Israel  (Clericus),nor  their  allies  and  abettors  (Grotius),  but  all  the  hos- 
tile nations  by  whom  Israel  was  scourged  (Jarchi),  with  particular  reference 
to  Assyria,  and  especially  to  the  army  of  Sennacherib.  The  application  of 
the  verse  by  most  interpreters  to  these  last  alone  is  too  exclusive  ;  much  more 
that  of  Gill  to  the  "  hectoring,  blustering,  and  blaspheming  speeches  of 
Sennacherib  and  Rabshakeh."  To  the  poetical  images  of  this  verse  a 
beautiful  parallel  is  adduced  by  Clericus  from  Ovid's  Metamorphoses  (XV. 
604): 

Qualia  fluctus 
Aequorei  faciunt,  si  quis  procul  audiat  ipsos, 
Tale  sonat  populus. 

V.  13.  Nations,  like  the  rush  of  many  waters,  rush;  and  he  rebukes 
it,  and  it  flees  from  afar,  and  is  chased  like  the  chaff  of  hills  before  a  wind, 
and  like  a  rolling  thing  before  a  whirlwind.  The  genuineness  of  the  first 
clause  is  questioned  by  Lowth  and  Gesenius,  because  it  is  a  repetition  of 
what  goes  before  and  is  omitted  in  the  Peshito  and  several  manuscripts. 
Hendewerk  and  Knobel,  on  the  contrary,  pronounce  it  not  only  genuine  but 
full  of  emphasis,  and  Henderson  describes  it  as  a  pathetic  repetition.  Thus 
the  same  expressions,  which  one  critic  thinks  unworthy  of  a  place  in  the 
text,  are  regarded  by  another  as  rhetorical  beauties,  an  instructive  illustra- 
tion of  the  fluctuating  and  uncertain  nature  of  conjectural  criticism  founded 
on  the  taste  of  individual  interpreters.  Luther  and  Augusti  insert  yes  (ja) 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  which,  though  unnecessary,  indicates  the  true 
connexion.  The  verb  W  is  often  used  in  reference  to  God's  control  of  the 
elements,  denoting,  as  Gataker  observes,  a  real  rather  than  a  verbal  rebuke. 
Ewald,  on  the  contrary,  supposes  the  emphasis  to  lie  in  God's  subduing 
the  elemental  strife  by  a  bare  word.  The  suffix  in  is,  and  the  verbs  &3  and 
SjWi,  being  all  in  the  singular  number,  are  referred  by  Hitzig  to  )ix*2,  but 
more  naturally  by  most  other  writers  to  Sennacherib,  or  his  host  considered 
as  an  individual.  Knobel  makes  the  suffix  collective,  as  in  ch.  5 :  26,  and 
regards  the  singular  verbs  as  equivalent  to  plurals.  By  using  the  neuter 
pronoun  it  in  English,  and  making  the  verbs  agree  with  it  in  number,  the 
peculiar  form  of  the  original  may  be  retained  without  additional  obscurity. 
The  subjunctive  construction  given  by  Junius  (ut  fugiat)  and  some  others, 
is  a  needless  departure  from  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original.  The  ex- 
pression from  afar,  is  explained  by  Kimchi  as  meaning  that  the  fugitive, 
having  reached  a  distant  point,  would  flee  from  it  still  further.  Vitringa 
understands  it  to  mean  that  he  would  flee  while  human  enemies  were  still 
at  a  distance.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  suppose  from  to  be  used,  by  a 
peculiar  Hebrew  idiom,  as  to  would  be  employed  in  other  languages.  (See 
Nordheimer,  §  1046,  IV.  1.)  Kimchi  sees  in  Cgf1?  an  allusion  to  the  de- 
stroying angel.     (Comp.  Ps.  35  :  5,  6.)     fa  is  not  dust  or  straw,  but  chaff 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII. 

or  stubble.  Mountains,  according  to  Gataker,  are  here  contrasted  with 
threshing-floors;  hut  tlirsr  were  commonly  on  hills  or  knolls  where  the 
wind  blows  freely.  According  to  Jarchi,  baba  is  a  ball  of  thistle-down; 
according  to  Gill,  "  a  round  wisp  of  straw  or  stubble."  Junius  translates 
it  rota,  Cocceius  vortex,  Lowth  gossamer.  All  these  interpretations  are  too 
definite.  Calvin  explains  it  in  accordance  with  its  etymology,  as  meaning 
rem  volubiUm,  any  thing  hlown  round  by  the  wind.  This  is  also  not  im- 
probably the  meaning  of  the  Vulgate  version,  sicut  turbo  coram  tempestate. 
The  common  version,  rolling  thing,  may  therefore  be  retained.  While  there 
seems  to  be  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  flight  of  Sennacherib  and  the  remnant 
of  his  host  (ch.  37  :  36,  37),  the  terms  are  so  selected  as  to  admit  of  a  wider 
a  p plication  to  all  Jehovah's  enemies,  and  thus  prepare  the  way  for  the  gen- 
eral declaration  in  the  following  verse. 

V.  14.  At  evening-tide,  and  behold  terror ;  before  morning  he  is  not. 
This  is  (or  be)  the  portion  of  our  plunderers,  and  the  lot  of  our  spoilers. 
According  to  Piscator,  these  are  the  words  of  the  people ;  according  to 
Henderson,  their  shout  of  exultation  in  the  morning  of  their  deliverance. 
Gill  says  the  Prophet  and  the  people  speak  together.  There  is  no  need, 
however,  of  departing  from  the  simple  supposition  that  the  Prophet  is  the 
speaker,  and  that  he  uses  the  plural  pronouns  only  to  identify  himself  with 
the  people.  On  account  of  the  l  before  n:n,  some  think  it  necessary  to 
supply  a  verb  before  Mb,  (they  shall  come)  in  the  evening.  The  English 
Version,  on  the  same  ground,  transfers  and  behold  to  the  beginning  of  the 
sentence.  But  nothing  is  more  common  in  the  Hebrew  idiom  than  the  use 
of  and  after  specifications  of  time.  (See  Gesenius  <§>  152,  a.)  In  many 
cases  it  must  be  omitted  in  English,  or  exchanged  for  then ;  but  in  the  pres- 
ent instance  it  may  be  retained.  Luther  renders  b  about  (urn),  Ewald 
towards  (gegen),  but  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  at  (zu),  which  is  the 
simpler  version,  and  the  one  most  agreeable  to  usage.  Tide  is  an  old  Eng- 
lish word  for  time,  identical  in  origin  with  the  German  Zeit.  Lowth  awk- 
wardly substitutes  at  the  season  of  evening.  WHkl  is  not  merely  trouble,  but 
terror,  consternation.  Vitringa  renders  it  still  more  strongly  horror,  and 
Ewald  Todesschrecken.  Cocceius  has  nebula,  founded  on  an  erroneous 
etymology.  The  reference  of  «3*n  to  fir^a,  it  (the  terror)  is  no  more, 
is  ungrammatical,  the  latter  being  feminine.  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Hen- 
derson have  they  are  no  more.  Most  writers  suppose  a  specific  allusion  to 
Sennacherib  or  his  host.  It  is  best,  at  all  events,  to  retain  the  singular  form 
of  the  original  as  being  more  expressive  and  poetical.  The  paraphrastic 
versions,  he  shall  no  more  be  present  (J.  H.  Michaelis),  he  is  vanished 
(Ewald),  there  is  no  more  any  trace  of  him  (Augusti),  and  the  like,  are  all 
not  only  less  exact  but  weaker  than  the  literal  translation,  he  is  not.     Lowth 

22 


338  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVII. 

inserts  1  before  lii^t  on  the  authority  of  several  manuscripts  and  three  an- 
cient versions,  thereby  restoring,  as  he  says,  "  the  true  poetical  form,"  by 
obtaining  a  more  exact  parallel  to  nam.  Umbreit  and  others  suppose  night 
and  morning  to  be  here  combined  in  the  sense  of  a  very  short  time,  as  in 
Ps.  30  :  5,  Weeping  may  endure  for  a  night,  but  joy  cometh  in  the  morning. 
(Compare  Ps.  90  :  6.)  Most  interpreters,  however,  suppose  an  allusion  to 
the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army  in  a  single  night.  Of  these  some,  with 
Aben  Ezra,  understand  by  nn&a  the  terror  of  the  Jews  on  the  eve  of  that 
event,  relieved  in  the  morning  by  the  sight  of  the  dead  bodies.  Others,  with 
Jarchi,  understand  by  it  the  sudden  consternation  of  the  Assyrians  themselves 
when  attacked  by  the  destroying  angel.  Jarchi  seems,  moreover,  to  refer  this 
panic  to  the  agency  of  demons  (d^^).  The  allusion  to  Sennacherib  is  denied 
by  Grotius,  Clericus,  and  Rosenmiiller,  the  first  two  supposing  Syria  or 
Syria  and  Israel  to  be  the  only  subject  of  the  prophecy.  Gesenius  and 
Knobel  arbitrarily  assert  that  the  history  of  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's 
army  is  a  mythus  founded  on  this  prophecy.  The  only  reason  why  this 
assertion  cannot  be  refuted  is  because  it  is  a  mere  assertion.  Before  such 
license  of  conjecture  and  invention  neither  history  nor  prophecy  can  stand  a 
moment.  The  correct  view  of  the  verse  before  us  seems  to  be,  that  while 
the  imagery  is  purposely  suited  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  the 
description  is  intended  to  include  other  cases  of  deliverance  granted  to 
God's  people  by  the  sudden  and  complete  destruction  of  their  enemies. 
Calvin  supposes  this  more  general  sense  to  be  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a 
storm  at  night  which  ceases  before  morning.  <  Quemadmodum  tempestas, 
vesperi  excitata  et  paulo  post  sedata',  mane  nulla  est  amplius,  ideo  futurum 
ut  hostibus  dispulsis  redeat  subito  praeter  spem  laeta  serenitas.'  Not  con- 
tent with  this  comprehensive  exposition,  Cocceius,  true  to  his  peculiar  prin- 
ciples of  exegesis,  specifies  as  subjects  of  the  prophecy  the  whole  series  of 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  kings,  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  the  persecuting 
Jews,  Nero,  Domitian,  Chosroes  king  of  Persia,  and  the  persecuting  kings  of 
France  and  England,  adding,  not  without  reason  after  such  a  catalogue, 
'  utile  est,  cumprimis  studiosis  theologiae,  historiam  ecclesiae  et  hostium 
ejus  non  ignorare.'  The  substantive  verb  being  suppressed,  as  usual,  in  the 
last  clause  of  the  verse,  it  may  be  either  an  affirmation  of  a  general  fact,  or 
an  expression  of  desire,  as  in  the  close  of  Deborah  and  Barak's  song,  so  let 
all  thine  enemies  perish,  oh  Jehovah  (Judges  5:  31).  The  first  explana- 
tion is  in  this  case  more  obvious  and  natural,  and  is  accordingly  preferred 
by  most  interpreters. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVIII.  339 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

The  two  great  powers  of  western  Asia,  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  were 
Assyria  and  Egypt  or  Ethiopia,  the  last  two  being  wholly  or  partially  united 
under  Tirhakah,  whose  name  and  exploits  are  recorded  in  Egyptian  monu- 
ments still  extant,  and  who  is  expressly  said  in  Scripture  (2  Kings  19:9) 
to  have  come  out  against  Sennacherib.  With  one  or  the  other  of  these 
great  contending  powers,  Judah  was  commonly  confederate,  and  of  course 
at  war  with  the  other.  Hezekiah  is  explicitly  reproached  by  Rabshakeh 
(Is.  36  :  9)  with  relying  upon  Egypt,  i.  e.  the  Ethiopico-egyptian  empire. 
These  historical  facts,  together  with  the  mention  of  Cush  in  v.  1,  and  the 
appropriateness  of  the  figures  in  vs.  4,  5,  to  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's 
army,  give  great  probability  to  the  hypothesis  now  commonly  adopted,  that 
the  Prophet  here  announces  that  event  to  Ethiopia,  as  about  to  be  effected 
by  a  direct  interposition  of  Jehovah,  and  without  human  aid.  On  this  sup- 
position, although  not  without  its  difficulties,  the  chapter  before  us  is  much 
clearer  in  itself  and  in  its  connexion  with  the  one  before  it,  than  if  we  as- 
sume with  some  interpreters,  both  Jews  and  Christians,  that  it  relates  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews,  or  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptians  or  Ethiopians 
themselves  as  the  enemies  of  Israel.  At  the  same  time,  some  of  the  expres- 
sions here  employed  admit  of  so  many  interpretations,  that  it  is  best  to  give 
the  whole  as  wide  an  application  as  the  language  will  admit,  on  the 
ground  before  suggested,  that  it  constitutes  a  part  of  a  generic  prophecy  or 
picture  of  God's  dealings  with  the  foes  of  his  people,  including  illustrations 
drawn  from  particular  events,  such  as  the  downfall  of  Syria  and  Israel,  and 
the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army. 

The  Prophet  first  invites  the  attention  of  the  Ethiopians  and  of  the 
whole  world  to  a  great  catastrophe  as  near  at  hand,  vs.  1-3.  He  then 
describes  the  catastrophe  itself,  by  the  beautiful  figure  of  a  vine  or  vineyard 
suffered  to  blossom  and  bear  fruit,  and  then,  when  almost  ready  to  be  gath- 
ered, suddenly  destroyed,  vs.  4-6.  In  consequence  of  this  event,  the  same 
people,  who  had  been  invoked  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  are  described 
as  bringing  presents  to  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem,  v.  7. 

V.  1 .  Ho !  land  of  rustling  wings,  which  art  beyond  the  rivers  of 
Cush  (or  Ethiopia)  !  "»in  is  rendered  woe !  by  the  Septuagint,  Cocceius, 
and  Paulus,  hark !  by  Augusti,  but  by  most  other  writers,  as  a  particle  of 
calling,  ho !  or  ha !  b&z  is  explained  by  some  as  an  intensive  or  frequent- 
ative form  of  ^  a  shadow,  in  which  sense  it  is  rendered  by  the  Peshito  and 


340  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XV1IJ. 

Aquila  (axia  nzeovycov) — here  used  as  a  figure  for  protection  (Calvin) — or 
in  allusion  to   the  shadow  cast  by  a  double  chain  of  mountains  (Saadias, 
Abulwalid,  Grotius,  Junius,  Vitringa,  Dathe) — or  to  the  opposite  direction 
of  the  shadows  in  winter  and  summer  under  the  tropics  (Vogt,  Aurivillius, 
Eichhorn,  Knobel) — a  circumstance  particularly  mentioned  in   connexion 
with  Meroe  by  Pliny  (in  Meroe  bis  anno  absumi  umbras),  Lucan   (donee 
umbras  extendat  Meroe),  and  other  ancient  Writers.     Knobel  takes  c^bss  in 
the  sense  of  sides  (ch.  30:  20.  11  :  12.  Ez.  7  :  2),  and  supposes  the  expres- 
sion to  have  been  suggested  by  the  common   phrase  shadow  of  wings  (Ps. 
17 :  8.  36 :  8.  57  :  2.  63  :  8).     But  as  the  double  form  V>sbx  in  every  other 
case  has  reference  to  sound,  some  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  noise  made  by 
the  locusts,  one  of  the   names  of  which  in  Hebrew  is  ^x^x  (Paulus,  J.  D. 
Michaelis) — some  to  the  rushing  sound  of  rivers  (Umbreit) — others  to  the 
clash  of  arms  or  other  noises  made  by  armies  on  the  march,  here  called 
wings  by  a  common  figure  (Gesenius,  Rosenmliller,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hen- 
dewerk).     But  Knobel  denies  that  t)»,  absolutely  used,  can  signify  an  ar- 
my.    The  plural  d^s^x  is  elsewhere  used  in  the  sense  of  cymbals,  and  the 
Vulgate  here  has  terrae   cymbalo  alarum.     Bochart,   Huet,  Clericus,  and 
Lowth,  suppose  the  word  to  be  here  applied  to  the  Egyptian  sistrum,  a  spe- 
cies of  cymbal,  consisting  of  a  rim  or  frame  of  metal,  with  metallic  rods  or 
plates  passing  through  and  across  it,  the  extremities  of  which  might  be  poet- 
ically called  wings.     From  the  resemblance  of  the  ancient  ships  to  cymbals, 
or  of  their  sails  to  wings,  or  from  both  together,  the  phrase  before  us  is  ap- 
plied to   ships   by  the  Septuagint  (nloicov  nttovysg),  Targum,  Kimchi,  and 
Ewald  (o  Land  gefliigelter  Kahne!). — The  relative  110 x  is  construed  with 
the  nearest  antecedent  n^s:^  by  Cocceius  and  J.  H.  Michaelis,  but  by  most 
other  writers  with   the  remoter  antecedent  "px.     h  *!3&b  is  understood  to 
mean  on  this  side  by  Vitringa,  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk — on  thai  side  or  be- 
yond by  Gesenius,  Rosenmuller,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  and   most  of  the  older 
writers — at  the  side  or  along  by  Saadias,  Grotius,  Junius,  Lowth,  Barnes, 
Ewald,  Knobel,  and  others.      Cush  is   supposed  by   Wahl  to  mean  Chu- 
sistan  or  Turan,  both  here  and  in  Gen.  2:  13 — by  Bochart,  Ethiopia  and 
the  opposite  part  of  Arabia,  but  by  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers,  Ethiopia 
alone.     The  rivers  of  Cush  are  supposed  by  some   to  be  the  JNile  and  its 
branches — by  others,  the  Astaboras,  Astapus,  and  Astasobas,  mentioned  by 
Strabo  as  the  rivers  of  Meroe,  which  last  name  Knobel  traces  to  the  Ethiopic 
root  *Yi  as  he  does  the  Hebrew  Saba  to  the  synonymous  N20,  both  implying 
an  abundant  irrigation.     The  country  thus  described  is  understood  by  Cyril, 
Jerome,  Bochart,  Vitringa,  and  Lowth,  to  be  Egypt ;  by  most  other  writers 
Ethiopia ;  but  by  Knobel,  Saba  or  Meroe,  a  region  contiguous  to  Ethiopia 
and  watered  by  its  rivers,  often  mentioned  with  it  but  distinguished  from  it 
(Gen.  10:  7.  Isa.  43:  3.  45:  14).     Besides  the  usual  construction  of  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVIII.  £41 

first  clause,  may  be  mentioned  that  of  Dud* srlein,  llensler,  and  Dereser,  who 
make  bsbx  a  verb  (er  schwirrt),  and  that  of  Augusti ;  *  hearken,  oh  land,  to 
the  rushing  of  his  wings  who  is  beyond  the  rivers  of  Ethiopia.' 

V.  2.  Sending  by  sea  ambassadors,  and  in  vessels  of  papyrus  on  the  face 
of  the  ivatcrs.  Go  ye  light  (or  swift)  messengers,  to  a  nation  dratvn  and 
shorn,  to  a  people  terrible  since  it  existed  and  onwards,  a  nation  of  double 
strength,  and  trampling,  whose  land  the  streams  divide.  Nearly  every 
word  and  phrase  of  this  difficult  verse  has  been  the  subject  of  discordant 
explanations.  nViin  is  translated  in  the  second  person  (thou  that  sendest) 
by  Cocceius,  Clericus,  Vitringa,  and  Henderson,  by  most  other  writers  in 
the  third.  It  refers  not  to  God  but  to  the  people  mentioned  in  v.  1.  Vi- 
tringa construes  it  with  D3  understood,  Gesenius  with  "~x  in  the  sense  of  ny, 
and  therefore  masculine.  D"1  is  variously  explained  to  mean  the  Red  Sea, 
the  Mediterranean,  and  the  Nile  (Is.  19:  5.  Nah.  3:  8).  Bochart  takes 
D^a  in  the  sense  of  images,  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  Egyptian  prac- 
tice, mentioned  by  Cyril,  Procopius,  and  Lucian,  of  sending  an  image  of 
Osiris  annually  on  the  surface  of  the  sea  to  Byblus  in  Phenicia.  The  Sep- 
tuagint  renders  the  word  hostages  (ofirjQo)  ;  but  all  the  latest  writers  are 
agreed  in  giving  it  the  sense  of  ambassadors,  to  wit,  those  sent  to  Ethiopia, 
or  fr  >m  Ethiopia  to  Judah.  The  next  phrase  is  rendered  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  imvroXas  fii(jlivag,  but  is  now  universally  explained  to  mean  vessels 
made  of  the  papyrus  plant,  the  use  of  which  upon  the  Nile  is  expressly 
mentioned  by  Theophrastus,  Pliny,  Lucan,  and  Plutarch.  The  second 
clause  of  the  verse  (is^1  etc.)  is  regarded  by  some  writers  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  people  who  had  just  been  addressed,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  send- 
ing ambassadors  (and  saying  to  them)  go  etc'  More  probably,  however, 
the  Prophet  is  still  speaking  in  the  name  of  God.  The  following  epithets 
are  applied  by  some  to  the  Jews,  and  supposed  to  be  descriptive  of  their  de- 
graded and  oppressed  condition.  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  apply  them 
to  the  Ethiopians  and  make  them  descriptive  of  their  warlike  qualities. 
^p-CD  according  to  usage  means  drawn  or  drawn  out,  which  is  applied  by 
some  to  the  shape  of  the  country,  by  others  to  the  numbers  engaged  in 
foreign  war,  by  the  Septuagint  and  Hitzig  to  the  stature  of  the  people. 
This  meaning  is  rejected  by  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  but  approved  in 
his  Thesaurus.  The  meanings  convulsed  (Vulgate)  and  torn  (Luther) 
are  not  justified  by  usage.  Those  of  ancient,  inaccessible,  and  scattered, 
are  entirely  conjectural.  P^VQ  for  D*VW  properly  denotes  shorn  or  shaven, 
and  is  applied  by  some  to  the  Egyptian  and  Ethiopian  practice  of  shaving 
the  head  and  beard,  while  others  understand  it  as  a  figure  for  robbery  and 
spoliation.  Some  understand  it  to  mean  smoothed  or  smooth,  and  by  impli- 
cation beautiful.     Others  apply  it  to  the  character,  and  take  it  in  the  sense  of 


342  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVIII. 

brave  or  fierce.  Kin  *p  is  by  some  applied  to  time,  from  the  first  and 
hitherto,  from  the  earliest  time ;  from  this  time,  by  others  to  place,  from 
this  place  and  onward.  Many  interpreters  make  it  comparative,  more  ter- 
rible than  this,  or  than  any  other,  more  terrible  than  this  and  further  off. 
In  favour  of  applying  it  to  time,  are  the  analogous  expressions  in  1  Sam. 
18 :  9,  while  1  Sam.  20:  22  justifies  the  local  sense.  ^P~p  is  explained  by 
Clericus  to  be  the  proper  name  of  the  Egyptian  plant  called  Jciki.  Most 
writers  take  it  in  its  usual  sense  of  line,  i.  e.  as  some  suppose,  a  rule  or 
precept,  the  people  being  described  as  burdened  with  superstitious  rites  ; 
according  to  others,  a  measuring  line,  meted  out  or  meting  out  others  to 
destruction  ;  according  to  a  third  class,  a  boundary  line,  enlarging  its  boun- 
daries. Some  make  it  mean  on  every  side  and  others  by  degrees,  in  both 
cases  qualifying  that  which  follows.  But  the  latest  German  writers  make 
the  word  identical  with  the  Arabic  g«Jj  meaning  power,  the  reduplication 
signifying  double  strength.  S-iDima  must  then  have  an  active  sense,  a 
people  of  trampling,  i.  e.  trampling  on  their  enemies.  Those  who  apply 
the  description  to  the  Jews  give  the  word  of  course  a  passive  sense,  a  people 
trampled  on  by  their  oppressors.  By  rivers,  in  the  last  clause,  some  sup- 
pose nations  to  be  meant,  or  the  Assyrians  in  particular ;  but  most  writers 
understand  it  literally  as  a  description  of  the  country,  sttn  is  explained  by 
the  Rabbins  as  a  synonyme  of  tia,  to  spoil  or  plunder,  and  a  few  manu- 
scripts read  itta.  Others  give  the  verb  the  sense  of  nourishing,  water- 
ing, overflowing,  washing  away,  promising ;  but  the  best  sense  is  that  of 
cutting  up,  cutting  through,  or  simply  dividing,  in  allusion  to  the  abundant 
irrigation  of  Ethiopia.  Vitringa  supposes  this  clause  to  refer  to  the  annual 
overflowing  of  the  Nile,  and  the  one  before  it  to  the  Egyptian  practice  of 
treading  the  grain  into  the  soil  when  softened  by  the  inundation. 

V.  3.  All  ye  inhabitants  of  the  world  and  dwellers  on  the  earth  shall 
see  as  it  were  the  raising  of  a  standard,  on  the  mountains,  and  shall  hear 
as  it  were  the  blowing  of  a  trumpet.  Another  construction,  more  gener- 
ally adopted,  makes  the  verbs  imperative,  and  the  a  a  particle  of  time,  as  it 
usually  is  before  the  infinitive.  So  the  English  Version  :  see  ye  when  he  lift- 
eth  up  an  ensign  on  the  mountains,  and  when  he  bloweth  a  trumpet  hear  ye. 
There  seems,  however,  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  strict 
translation  of  the  verbs  as  future  :  and  if  this  be  retained,  it  is  better  to  make 
a  a  particle  of  comparison.  In  either  case,  the  verse  invites  the  attention  of 
the  world  to  some  great  event.  The  restricted  explanation  of  ban  and  "pa, 
as  meaning  land  or  country,  is  entirely  arbitrary.  According  to  Vitringa, 
Gesenius,  Rosenmuller,  and  Maurer,  the  signals  meant  are  those  of  the  As- 
syrian invader,  or  those  announcing  his  destruction  ;  but  according  to  Do- 
derlein,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel.  the  signals  by  means  of  which  the 
Ethiopians  would  collect  their  forces. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XVIII.  343 

V.  4.  For  thus  said  (or  saith)  Jehovah  to  me,  I  will  rest  (remain  quiet), 
and  will  look  on  (as  a  mere  spectator)  in  my  dwelling  place,  like  a  serene 
heat  upon  herbs,  like  a  cloud  of  dew  (or  dewy  cloud),  in  the  heat  of  har- 
vest (i.  e.  the  heat  preceding  harvest,  or  the  heat  by  which  the  crop  is 
ripened).  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  for  the  preceding  invitation  to 
attend.  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  figure  is,  that  God  would  let  the  ene- 
my proceed  in  the  execution  of  his  purposes  until  they  were  nearly  accom- 
plished. Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  explain  a  before  en  and  33  as  a 
particle  of  time,  '  during  the  heat  and  dewy  cloud '  i.  e.  the  summer  sea- 
son. This  use  of  the  particle,  which  is  very  common  before  the  infinitive,  is 
rare  and  doubtful  before  nouns,  and  ought  not  to  be  assumed  without  neces- 
sity. According  to  this  construction,  the  words  merely  indicate  the  time  of 
God's  apparent  inaction.  If  we  give  the  a  its  proper  sense  as  a  compara- 
tive particle,  the  meaning  seems  to  be  that  he  would  not  only  abstain  from 
interfering  with  the  enemy,  but  would  even  favour  his  success  to  a  certain 
point,  as  dew  and  sunshine*  would  promote  the  growth  of  plants.  The 
latest  writers  give  to  lixthe  sense  of  sunshine,  and  explain  the  whole  phrase 
to  mean  the  clear  or  genial  heat  which  accompanies  the  sunshine  and  is  pro- 
duced by  it.  But  as  this  requires  the  preposition  (**?*)  to  be  taken  in  an 
unusual  sense,  it  is  better  perhaps  to  regard  liwi  as  synonymous  with  •"Hi's, 
herb  or  herbage.  Some  of  the  Rabbins  explain  "V»j  here  and  in  Job  36  : 
22.  37  :  11,  as  meaning  rain  (like  clear  heat  after  rain)  ;  but  of  this  sense 
there  are  no  decisive  examples.  Junius  and  Lowth  make  ^i^s  the  object 
of  the  contemplation,  whereas  it  is  merely  added  to  express  the  idea  of  rest 
at  home,  as  opposed  to  activity  abroad.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to 
explain  the  ncun  as  meaning  heaven,  although  this  is  better  than  its  applica- 
tion to  the  earthly  sanctuary. 

V.  5.  For  before  the  harvest,  as  the  bloom  is  finished ,  and  the  flower  be- 
comes a  ripening  grape,  he  cuts  down  the  branches  with  the  pruning  knives, 
and  the  tendrils  he  removes,  he  cuts  away.  The  obvious  meaning  of  the 
figures  is,  that  although  God  would  suffer  the  designs  of  the  enemy  to  ap- 
proach completion,  he  would  nevertheless  interfere  at  the  last  moment  and 
destroy  both  him  and  them.  Some  writers  give  to  "3  the  sense  of  but,  in 
order  to  make  the  antithesis  clearer;  but  in  this  as  in  many  other  cases  the 
particle  refers  to  something  more  remote  than  the  immediately  preceding 
words,  and  is  correctly  explained  by  Knobel  as  correlative  and  parallel 
with  the  "flD  at  the  beginning  of  v.  4.  As  if  he  had  said,  let  all  the  world 
await  the  great  catastrophe — for  I  will  let  the  enemy  almost  attain  his  end 
— but  let  them  still  attend — for  before  it  is  attained,  I  will  destroy  him. 
The  verbs  in  the  last  clause  may  either  be  referred  directly  to  Jehovah  as 
their  subject,  or  construed   indefinitely,  one  shall  cut  them  down.     Jarchi 


344 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XVIII. 


supplies  the  participle  or  cognate  noun  (m^n  ros)  as  in  ch.  16 :  10.  The 
form  tnn  is  derived  by  Gesenius  from  T^n,  by  Hitzig  fromttri,  and  by  Knobel 
from  Tna,  but  all  agree  as  to  the  meaning.  The  verb  ft^JJ  receives  its  form 
from  the  predicate,  and  not  from  the  subject  which  is  feminine.  (See 
Gesenius,  <§>  134.) 

V.  6.  They  shall  be  left  together  to  the  wild  bird  of  the  mountains  and 
to  the  wild  beasts  of  the  earth  (or  land),  and  the  wild  bird  shall  summer 
thereon,  and  every  wild  beast  of  the  earth  (or  land)  thereon  shall  winter. 
It  is  commonly  supposed  that  there  is  here  a  transition  from  the  figure  of  a 
vineyard  to  that  of  a  dead  body,  the  branches  cut  off  and  thrown  away 
being  suddenly  transformed  into  carcasses  devoured  by  beasts  and  birds. 
For  alike  combination,  vide  supra,  ch.  14:  19.  But  this  interpreta  ion, 
though  perhaps  the  most  natural,  is  not  absolutely  necessary.  As  the  act 
of  devouring  is  not  expressly  mentioned,  the  reference  may  be,  not  to  the 
carnivorous  habits  of  the  animals,  but  to  their  wild  and  solitary  life.  In 
that  case  the  sense  would  be  that  the  amputated  branches,  and  the  desolated 
vineyard  itself,  shall  furnish  lairs  and  nests  for  beasts  and  birds  which  com- 
monly frequent  the  wildest  solitudes,  implying  abandonment  and  utter  deso 
lation.  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  put  upon  the  words  by  Luther,  who 
translates  the  verbs  shall  make  their  nests  and  lie  therein  (darinnen  nisten 
darinnen  liegen).  The  only  reason  for  preferring  this  interpretation  is  that 
it  precludes  the  necessity  of  assuming  a  mixed  metaphor,  or  an  abrupt 
exchange  of  one  for  another,  both  which,  however,  are  too  common  in 
Isaiah  to  excite  surprise.  On  either  supposition,  the  general  meaning  ol 
the  verse  is  obvious.  The  form  of  the  last  clause  is  idiomatic,  the  birds 
being  said  to  spend  the  summer  and  the  beasts  the  winter,  not  with  refer- 
ence to  any  real  difference  in  their  habits,  but  for  the  purpose  of  expressing 
the  idea,  that  beasts  and  birds  shall  occupy  the  spot  throughout  the 
year.  According  to  the  common  explanation  of  the  verse  as  referring  to 
dead  bodies,  it  is  a  hyperbolical  description  of  their  multitude,  as  furnishing 
repast  for  a  whole  year  to  the  beasts  and  birds  of  prey. 

V.  7.  At  that  time  shall  be  brought  a  gift  to  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  a 
people  drawn  out  and  shorn,  and  from  a  people  terrible  since  it  has  been 
and  onward  (or  still  more  terrible  and  still  further  off),  a  nation  of  double 
power  and  trampling,  whose  land  streams  divide,  to  the  place  of  the  name 
of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  Mount  Zion.  Here,  as  in  v.  2,  the  sense  of  some 
particular  expressions  is  so  doubtful,  that  it  seems  better  to  retain,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  form  of  the  original,  with  all  its  ambiguity,  than  to  attempt  an 
explanatory  paraphrase.  All  are  agreed  that  we  have  here  the  prediction 
of  an  act  of  homage  to  Jehovah,  occasioned  by  the  great  event  described  in 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  345 

the  preceding  verses.  The  Jews,  who  understand  the  second  verse  as  a 
description  of  the  sufferings  endured  by  Israel,  explain  this  as  a  prophecy  of 
their  return  from  exile  and  dispersion,  aided  and  as  it  were  presented  as  an 
offering  to  Jehovah  b.  the  heathen.  (Vide  infra,  ch.  66:  20.)  The  older 
Christian  writers  understand  it  as  predicting  the  conversion  of  the  Egyp- 
tians or  Ethiopians  to  the  true  religion.  Whoever,  says  Gesenius,  is  fond 
of  tracing  the  fulfilment  of  such  prophecies  in  later  history,  may  find  this 
one  verified  in  Rev.  8 :  26  sq.,  and  still  more  in  the  fact  that  Abyssinia  is 
at  this  day  the  only  great  Christian  power  of  the  east.  Gesenius  himself, 
with  the  other  recent  Germans,  understands  the  verse  as  describing  a  solemn 
contemporary  recognition  of  Jehovah's  power  and  divinity,  as  displayed  in 
the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army.  According  to  Gesenius,  two  different 
nations  are  described  both  here  and  in  v.  2,  an  opinion  which  he  thinks  is 
here  confirmed  by  the  insertion  of  the  copulative  1  before  the  second  ~r. 
But  Knobel  refers  to  ch.  27 :  1,  and  Zech.  9:  9,  as  proving  that  this  form 
of  expression  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  plurality  of  subjects.  A  stronger 
argument  in  favour  of  Gesenius's  hypothesis  is  furnished  by  the  insertion  of 
the  preposition  before  the  second  os.  The  most  natural  construction  of  the 
words  would  seem  to  be  that  the  gift  to  Jehovah  should  consist  of  one 
people  offered  by  another.  Most  interpreters,  however,  including  Gesenius 
himself,  infer  that  p  must  be  supplied  before  the  first  D3>  also — a  gift  shall 
be  brought  (from)  a  people  etc.  and  from  a  people  etc. — whether  the  latter 
be  another  or  the  same.  If  another,  it  may  be  Ethiopia  as  distinguished 
from  Egypt,  or  Meroe  as  distinguished  from  Ethiopia.  If  the  same,  it  may 
either  be  Egypt  or  more  probably  the  kingdom  of  Tirhakah,  including  Ethi- 
opia and  Upper  Egypt.  The  substitution  of  OS  here  for  ^il  in  v.  2,  and  the 
antithesis  between  them  there,  are  regarded  by  Cocceius  as  significant  and 
founded  on  the  constant  usage  of ''is  to  denote  a  heathen  and  or  a  believing 
people.  Most  other  writers  seem  to  regard  them  as  poetical  equivalents. 
The  place  of  God's  name  is  not  merely  the  place  called  by  his  name,  as 
explained  by  Clericus  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  but  the  place  where  his  name, 
i.  e.  the  manifestation  of  his  attributes,  resides. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


This  chapter  admits  of  a  well-defined  division  into  two  parts,  one  of 
which  contains  threatenings  (vs.  1-17),  and  the  other  promises  (vs.  18-25). 
The  first  part  may  again  be  subdivided.     In  vs.  1-4,  the  Egyptians  are 


346 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XIX. 


threatened  with  a  penal  visitation  from  Jehovah,  with  the  downfall  of  their 
idols,  with  intestine  commotions,  with  the  disappointment  of  their  supersti- 
tious hopes,  and  with  subjection  to  hard  masters.  In  vs.  5-10  they  are 
threatened  with  physical  calamities,  the  drying  up  of  their  streams,  the 
decay  of  vegetation,  the  loss  of  their  fisheries,  and  the  destruction  of  their 
manufactures.  In  vs.  11-17,  the  wisdom  of  their  wise  men  is  converted 
into  folly,  the  courage  of  their  brave  men  into  cowardice,  industry  univer- 
sally suspended,  and  the  people  filled  with  dread  of  the  anger  of  Jehovah. 
The  second  part  may  be  also  subdivided.  In  vs.  18-21,  the  Egyptians 
are  described  as  acknowledging  the  true  God,  in  consequence  of  what  they 
had  suffered  at  his  hand,  and  the  deliverance  which  he  had  granted  them. 
In  vs.  22-25,  the  same  cause  is  described  as  leading  to  an  intimate  union 
between  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Israel,  in  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and  the  en- 
joyment of  his  favour. 

Cocceius  takes  Egypt  in  what  he  calls  its  mystical  sense,  as  meaning 
Rome  or  the  Roman  empire,  and  explains  the  chapter  as  a  synopsis  of 
church  history  from  the  conversion  of  Constantine  to  the  latest  time.  Both 
the  fundamental  hypothesis  and  the  details  of  his  exposition  are  entirely 
arbitrary.  He  also  violates  the  obvious  relation  of  the  parts  by  making  the 
whole  chapter  minatory  in  its  import.  A  similar  objection  lies  against 
the  theory  of  Cyril,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  others,  who  understand  the 
whole  as  a  prediction  of  the  conversion  of  the  Egyptians  to  Christianity. 
But  the  first  part  (vs.  1-17)  cannot  be  explained,  except  by  violence,  either 
as  a  promise  or  a  figurative  description  of  conversion.  Junius  errs  in  the 
opposite  extreme,  by  applying  the  first  part  in  a  literal  sense  to  events  in  the 
early  history  of  Egypt,  and  the  last  in  a  figurative  sense  to  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  without  sufficiently  explaining  the  transition  or  connexion  of  the 
parts.  Grotius  applies  the  whole  to  events  which  occurred  before  the  ad- 
vent. He  regards  the  first  part  as  a  description  of  the  troubles  in  Egypt 
during  the  dodecarchy  which  preceded  the  reign  of  Psammetichus,  the  last 
part  as  a  prophecy  of  the  diffusion  of  the  true  religion  by  the  influx  of 
Jews  into  Egypt.  Clericus  agrees  with  him  in  principle,  but  differs  in  de- 
tail, by  referring  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  to  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.  J.  D.  Michaelis  takes  the  same  general  view,  but  ap- 
plies the  first  part  to  the  troubles  in  Egypt  under  Sethos,  and  the  last  part 
to  the  recognition  of  Jehovah  as  a  true  God  by  the  Egyptians  themselves, 
but  without  abjuring  heathenism.  Vitringa  more  ingeniously  explains  the 
first  part  as  a  prediction  of  the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  the  Persians,  and  the 
second  as  a  promise  of  deliverance  by  Alexander  the  Great,  and  of  general 
peace  and  friendly  intercourse  as  well  as  religious  advancement  under  his 
successors,  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian  kings,  by  which  the  way  would  be 
prepared  for  the  introduction  of  the  gospel.     This  view  of  the  passage  is 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  347 

substantially  adopted  by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Henderson.  Of  the  modern 
German  writers  some  explain  the  difference  between  the  two  parts  of  the 
chapter  by  supposing  an  interpolation.  Thus  Koppe  and  Eichhorn  regard 
vs.  18-25  as  a  distinct  prophecy,  and  even  Gesenius  doubts  the  genuine- 
ness of  vs.  18-20.  Hitzig  supposes  vs.  16-25  to  have  been  forged  by 
Onias,  when  he  induced  Ptolemy  to  build  a  temple  for  the  Jews  at  Leonto- 
polis.  These  absurd  suppositions  have  been  fully  and  triumphantly  refuted 
by  later  writers  of  the  same  school,  and  especially  by  Hendewerk  and  Kno- 
bel.  The  notion  of  Koppe  and  Eichhorn,  that  even  the  first  part  is  later 
than  the  times  of  Isaiah,  has  also  been  exploded.  Ewald  admits  a  pecu- 
liarity of  manner,  but  ascribes  it  to  the  old  age  of  Isaiah  when  this  prophecy 
was  written.  Gesenius,  Rosenmuller,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel,  proceeding 
on  the  twofold  supposition,  that  the  first  part  must  describe  the  events  of  a 
particular  period,  and  that  prophetic  foresight  is  impossible,  are  under  the 
necessity  of  finding  something  in  the  contemporary  history  of  Egypt  corres- 
ponding to  the  terms  of  the  description.  Gesenius  and  Knobel,  in  particu- 
lar, have  taken  vast  pains  to  combine  and  reconcile  the  contradictory  ac- 
counts of  Herodotus,  Diodorus,  and  Manetho,  as  to  the  dynasties  of  Egypt, 
the  succession  of  the  several  monarchs,  and  especially  the  date  of  the  acces- 
sion of  Psammetichus.  Ewald  and  Umbreit,  much  more  rationally,  reject 
the  hypothesis  of  specific  historical  allusions,  and  regard  the  whole  as  an  in- 
definite anticipation.  On  the  same  general  principle,  but  with  a  far  closer 
approximation  to  the  truth,  Calvin  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  the 
chapter  as  a  prophetic  picture  of  the  downfall  of  the  old  Egyptian  empire, 
and  of  the  subsequent  conversion  of  its  people.  The  most  correct  view  of 
the  matter  seems  to  be  as  follows.  The  Prophet  wishing  to  announce  to 
the  Jews  the  decline  anu  fall  of  that  great  heathen  power,  in  which  they 
were  so  constantly  disposed  to  trust  (30:  1.  31  :  1),  describes  the  event 
under  figures  borrowed  from  the  actual  condition  of  Egypt.  As  a  writer, 
who  should  now  predict  the  downfall  of  the  British  empire,  in  a  poetical 
and  figurative  style,  would  naturally  speak  of  its  fleets  as  sunk  or  scattered, 
its  colonies  dismembered,  its  factories  destroyed,  its  railways  abandoned,  its 
universities  abolished,  so  the  Prophet  vividly  portrays  the  fall  of  Egypt 
by  describing  the  waters  of  the  Nile  as  failing,  its  meadows  withering,  its 
fisheries  ceasing,  and  the  peculiar  manufactures  of  the  country  expiring,  the 
proverbial  wisdom  of  the  nation  changed  to  folly,  its  courage  to  cowardice, 
its  strength  to  weakness.  Whether  particular  parts  of  the  description  were, 
intended  to  have  a  more  specific  application,  is  a  question  not  affecting  the 
truth  of  the  hypothesis,  that  the  first  part  is  a  metaphorical  description  of  the 
downfall  of  the  great  Egyptian  monarchy.  So  too  in  the  second  part,  the 
introduction  of  the  true  religion,  and  its  effect  as  well  on  the  internal  state 
as  on  the  international  relations  of  the  different  countries,  is  expressed  by 


348  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX. 

figures  drawn  from  the  civil  and  religious  institutions  of  the  old  economy. 
The  comparative  merits  of  this  exegetical  hypothesis  and  those  which  have 
been  previously  stated  will  be  best  exhibited  in  the  detailed  interpretation  of 
the  chapter.  It  will  only  be  necessary  here  to  add  that  there  is  no  abrupt 
transition,  but  a  natural  and  intimate  connexion  between  the  downfall  of  a 
heathen  power  and  the  growth  of  the  true  religion,  and  also  that  nothing 
can  be  more  arbitrary  than  the  exposition  of  the  first  part  as  a  literal  and  of 
the  other  as  a  metaphorical  prediction. 

V.  1.  The  Burden  of  Egypt.  Behold!  Jehovah  riding  on  a  light 
cloud,  and  he  comes  to  (or  into)  Egypt,  and  the  idols  of  Egypt  move  at 
his  presence,  and  the  heart  of  Egypt  melts  within  him.  This  verse  de- 
scribes God  as  the  author  of  the  judgments  afterwards  detailed.  His  visible 
appearance  on  a  cloud,  and  the  personification  of  the  idols,  prepare  the  mind 
for  a  poetical  description.  Lowth,  Barnes,  and  Henderson,  translate  the 
suffix  in  the  last  word  her.  But  d^s1?  is  here  the  name  of  the  ancestor 
(Gen.  10 :  6)  put  for  his  descendants.  The  English  Version  has  the  neuter 
it.  The  act  of  riding  on  a  light  cloud  implies  that  he  comes  from  heaven, 
and  that  he  comes  swiftly.  On  the  contemptuous  import  of  the  word  trans- 
lated idols,  vide  supra,  ch.  2:8;  on  the  meaning  of  at'tito, ch.  13:  1. 

V.  2.  And  I  will  excite  Egypt  against  Egypt,  and  they  shall  fight,  a 
man  with  his  brother,  and  a  man  with  his  fellow,  city  with  city,  kingdom 
with  kingdom.  The  first  verb  is  by  some  rendered  arm,  by  others  join  or 
engage  in  conflict ;  but  the  sense  of  stirring  up  or  rousing  is  preferred  both 
by  the  oldest  and  the  latest  writers.  The  version  usually  given,  Egyptians 
against  Egyptians,  though  substantially  correct,  is  neither  so  expressive  nor 
so  true  to  the  original  as  that  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti,  Egypt 
against  Egypt,  which  involves  an  allusion  to  the  internal  divisions  of  the 
kingdom,  or  rather  the  existence  of  contemporary  kingdoms,  more  explicitly 
referred  to  in  the  other  clause.  The  last  words  are  rendered  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  fopog  im  vo\iov,  meaning  no  doubt  the  thirty-six  nomes  or  provinces  of 
ancient  Egypt.  Grotius,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  and  others,  understand 
this  verse  as  referring  specifically  to  the  civil  wars  of  Egypt  in  the  days  of 
Sethos  or  Psammetichus.  But  while  the  coincidence  with  history  adds 
greatly  to  the  propriety  and  force  of  the  description,  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  departing  from  its  obvious  import,  as  a  description  of  inter- 
nal strife  and  anarchy  in  general.  The  expressions  bear  a  strong  resemb- 
lance to  those  used  in  the  description  of  the  state  of  Judah,  ch.  3:  5. 
Junius  regards  these  as  the  words  to  be  uttered  by  Jehovah  when  he  enters 
Egypt.  It  may,  however,  be  a  simple  continuation  of  the  prophecy,  with  a 
sudden  change  from  the  third  to  the  first  person,  of  which  there  are  many 
other  examples. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  349 

V.  3.  And  the  spirit  of  Egypt  shall  be  emptied  out  (or  exhausted)  in 
the  midst  thereof,  and  the  counsel  (or  sagacity)  thereof  I  will  swallow  up 
(annihilate  or  render  useless),  and  they  will  seek  to  the  idols,  and  to  the 
mutterers,  and  to  the  familiar  spirits,  and  to  the  wizards.  By  spirit  we 
are  not  to  understand  courage  but  intellect.  Gesenius,  in  his  lexicon, 
reads  ^Sf&d  and  renders  it  out  of  or  from  the  midst  of  it.  The  original  and 
proper  sense  of  nh^x  seems  to  be  murmurs  or  mutterings,  here  applied  to 
the  mutterers  themselves,  in  allusion  to  the  ancient  mode  of  incantation,  as 
to  which,  and  the  meaning  of  rvinix  and  n^r^,  vide  supra,  ch.  8:19.  Hj?23 
is  variously  rendered  by  the  early  writers,  troubled,  decayed,  destroyed,  etc. 
but  the  etymology  is  decisive  in  favour  of  the  sense  now  commonly  adopted. 
Augusti  expresses  the  contemptuous  import  of  n^b^x  by  translating  it  their 
wretched  gods. 

V.  4.  And  I  will  shut  up  Egypt  in  the  hands  of  a  hard  master,  and  a 
strong  king  shall  rule  over  them,  saith  the  Lord,  Jehovah  of  Hosts.  As 
ia&  means  to  shut  up  wherever  it  occurs,  the  intensive  form  here  usjed  can- 
not have  the  weaker  sense  of  giving  up,  delivering,  in  which  some  take  it. 
TOg  and  t!J  do  not  mean  cruel  or  fierce,  but  stern  or  rigorous.  The  first  of 
these  Hebrew  words  is  singular  in  form  but  construed  with  a  plural  noun. 
The  Septuagint  renders  both  phrases  in  the  plural.  Junius  makes  the  first 
plural  and  refers  it  to  the  dodecarchy  which  intervened  between  the  reigns 
of  Sethos  and  Psammetichus.  Cocceius  makes  fitil?  agree  with  something 
understood  (dominorum  gravis  dominationis),  and  refers  to  examples  of  a 
similar  construction  in  Ex.  28  :  17.  Judg.  5  :  13.  1  Kings  7 :  42.  2  Kings 
3:4.  Most  of  the  later  writers  are  agreed  in  explaining  B^ifc  as  a  pluralis 
majestaticus,  elsewhere  applied  to  individual  men  (2  Kings  42 :  30,  33. 
2  Kings  2 :  3,  5,  16).  The  king  here  mentioned  is  identified,  according  to 
their  various  hypotheses,  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  with  Sethos,  by  Grotius,  Gese- 
nius, and  others  with  Psammetichus,  by  the  Rabbins  with  Sennacherib,  by 
Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  with  Sargon,  by  Clericus  with  Nebuchadnezzar,  by 
Vitringa  with  Cambyses  or  Ochus,  by  Cocceius  with  Charlemagne.  The 
very  multiplicity  of  these  explanations  shows  how  fanciful  they  are,  and 
naturally  leads  us  to  conclude,  not  with  Ewald  that  the  prophet  is  express- 
ing mere  conjectures  or  indefinite  anticipations  (reine  Ahnung),  but  with 
Calvin  that  he  is  describing  in  a  general  way  the  political  vicissitudes  of 
Egypt,  one  of  which  would  be  subjection  to  an  arbitrary  power,  whether 
foreign  or  domestic,  or  to  both  at  different  periods  of  its  history. 

V.  5.  And  the  ivaiers  shall  be  dried  up  from  the  sea,  and  the  river  shall 
fail  and  be  dried  up.  Three  distinct  verbs  are  here  used  in  the  sense  of 
drying  up,  for  which  our  language  does  not  furnish  equivalents.     As  the 


350  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX. 


Nile  has  in  all  ages  been  called  a  sea  by  the  Egyptians  (Robinson's  Pales- 
tine, I.  542),  most  interpreters  suppose  it  to  be  here  referred  to,  in  both 
clauses.  Gesenius  and  others  understand  the  passage  as  foretelling  a  literal 
failure  of  the  irrigation  upon  which  the  fertility  of  Egypt  depends.  Vitrin- 
ga,  Knobel,  and  others,  explain  it  as  a  figurative  threatening  of  disorder  and 
calamity.  Grotius  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  decay  of  the  Egyptian  com- 
merce as  conducted  on  the  Nile  and  the  adjacent  seas  ;  Calvin  to  the  loss 
of  the  defence  and  military  strength  afforded  by  these  waters.  According 
to  the  exegetical  hypothesis  laid  down  in  the  introduction  to  the  chapter, 
this  is  a  prediction  of  Egypt's  national  decline  and  fall,  clothed  in  figures 
drawn  from  the  characteristic  features  of  its  actual  condition.  As  the  deso- 
lation of  our  own  western  territory  might  be  poetically  represented  as  the 
drying  up  of  the  Mississippi  and  its  branches,  so  a  like  event  in  the  history 
of  Egypt  would  be  still  more  naturally  described  as  a  desiccation  of  the  Nile, 
because  that  river  is  still  more  essential  to  the  prosperity  of  the  country 
which  it  waters.  In  favour  of  this  figurative  exposition  is  the  difficulty  of 
applying  the  description  to  particular  historical  events,  and  also  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  context,  as  will  be  more  clearly  seen  hereafter.  The  Septua- 
gint  treats  WV»a  as  an  active  form  of  nri&i,  to  drink,  the  Egyptians  shall 
drink  water  from  the  sea.  Aquila  makes  it  a  passive  from  the  same  root, 
shall  be  drunk  up  or  absorbed.  Hitzig  derives  it  from  nnttj,  in  the  sense  of 
settling,  subsiding,  and  so  failing.  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  make  it 
a  derivative  of  rv^J.  Junius  understands  this  verse  as  relating  to  the  diver- 
sion of  the  waters  of  the  Nile  to  form  the  lake  Moeris,  and  Luzzatto  propo- 
ses to  take  &?  as  the  name  of  the  lake  itself.  By  the  drying  up  of  the  seas 
and  rivers,  Cocceius  understands  the  irruption  of  the  Saracens  and  Turks 
into  Europe. 

V.  6.  And  the  rivers  shall  stirik  (or  become  putrid),  the  streams  of 
Egypt  are  emptied  and  dried  up,  reed  and  rush  sicken  (pine  or  wither). 
The  streams  meant  are  the  natural  and  artificial  branches  of  the  Nile, 
lif?  is  an  Egyptian  word  meaning  river,  and  is  specially  appropriated  to  the 
Nile  itself.  The  older  writers  take  TiSE  in  its  usual  meaning  of  defence  or 
fortification,  and  understand  the  whole  phrase  as  denoting  either  the  moats 
and  ditches  of  fortified  places,  or  walled  reservoirs.  The  modern  writers 
regard  lisa  as  the  singular  of  &"n3tS,  denoting  either  Lower  Egypt  or  the 
whole  country  indiscriminately.  Ewald  translates  it  Angslland,  in  allusion 
to  the  supposed  root  TO  or  "nx,  to  press,  ^n^Tsri  is  explained  by  the  older 
writers  as  meaning  to  depart  or  to  be  turned  away,  but  is  now  commonly 
understood  to  denote  the  stench  or  putrescence  produced  by  the  failure  of 
the  Nile  to  fill  its  branches  or  canals.  Gesenius  explains  it  as  a  mixed  form 
compounded  of  the  Chaldee  and  Hebrew  Hiphil ;  Ewald,  Maurer,  Hitzig, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  351 

and  Knobel,  as  a  verb  derived  from  an  adjective  nns,  meaning  fetid  or  pu- 
trescent. The  reed  and  rush  are  mentioned  as  a  common  growth  in  marshy 
situations.  The  Septuagint  makes  P]iO  mean  the  papyrus,  Vitringa  and 
Low  th  the  lotus. 

V.  7.  The  meadows  by  the  river,  by  the  mouth  of  the  river,  and  all  the 
sown  ground  of  the  river,  shall  wither,  being  driven  away,  and  it  is  not  (or 
shall  be  no  more).  The  Septuagint  for  KhJ  has  up  which  it  elsewhere  gives 
as  the  equivalent  of  'inst,  an  Egyptian  word  meaning,  according  to  Jerome, 
every  thing  green  that  grows  in  the  marshes  of  the  Nile.  Luther,  Calvin, 
and  others,  explain  it  to  mean  grass.  Gesenius  derives  it  from  fins  to  be 
naked,  and  explains  it  to  mean  bare  or  open  places,  i.  e.  meadows,  as  distin- 
guished from  woodland.  The  English  and  some  other  versions  treat  it  as 
the  name  of  the  papyrus,  but  without  authority.  The  English  Version  also 
takes  ij£  as  a  collective  (brooks),  and  Barnes  erroneously  observes  that  the 
Hebrew  word  is  here  in  the  plural  number.  It  is  the  word  already  men- 
tioned as  the  common  name  in  Scripture  for  the  Nile,  nor  is  there  any  need 
of  departing  from  this  sense  in  the  case  before  us,  by  translating  it  canals, 
as  Lowth  does.  Calvin  explains  mouth  to  mean  source  or  fountain,  which 
is  wholly  arbitrary.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  and  others,  regard  it  as 
synonymous  with  lip,  used  elsewhere  (Gen.  41 :  3.  Exod.  2:  3)  to  denote 
the  brink  or  margin  of  the  Nile.  Knobel  gives  the  same  sense  to  the  He- 
brew word  in  Prov.  8  :  29.  Hendewerk  and  some  of  the  older  writers  give 
the  word  its  geographical  sense,  as  denoting  the  place  where  the  waters  of  a 
stream  are  discharged  into  another  or  the  sea.  SSJS  is  not  produce  (Hen- 
derson), but  a  local  noun  meaning  the  place  of  seed  or  sowing,  i.  e.  cultiva- 
ted grounds,  here  distinguished  from  the  meadows  or  uncultivated  pastures. 
5)^3  is  commonly  supposed  to  refer  to  the  driving  away  of  the  withered  and 
pulverized  herbage  by  the  wind.  The  Vulgate  seems  to  take  rvhs  as  a 
verb,  and  the  first  clause  as  describing  the  disclosure  of  the  bed  of  the  river 
by  the  sinking  of  the  water  (nudabitur  alveus  rivi  a  fonte  suo).  The  de- 
cay of  vegetation  here  predicted  Cocceius  explains  to  be  the  dying  out  of 
Christianity  in  those  parts  of  Europe  conquered  by  the  Saracens  and 
Turks. 

V.  8.  And  the  fishermen  shall  mourn,  and  they  shall  lament,  all  the 
throwers  of  a  hook  into  the  river  (Nile),  and  the  spreaders  of  a  net  upon 
the  surface  of  the  water  languish.  Having  described  the  effect  of  the 
drought  on  vegetation,  he  now  describes  its  effect  upon  those  classes  of  the 
people  who  were  otherwise  dependent  on  the  river  for  subsistence.  The 
multitude  of  fishes  in  the  Nile,  and  of  people  engaged  in  catching  them,  is 
attested  both  by  ancient  and   modern  writers.     The  use  of  fish  in  ancient 


352  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XIX. 


Egypt  was  promoted  by  the  popular  superstitions  with  respect  to  other  ani- 
mals. The  net  is  said  to  be  not  now  used  in  the  fisheries  of  Egypt.  It  is 
remarkable,  however,  that  the  implement  itself  appears  on  some  of  the  old 
monuments.  This  verse  is  not  to  be  applied  to  an  actual  distress  among 
the  fishermen  at  any  one  time,  but  to  be  viewed  as  a  characteristic  trait  in 
the  prophetic  picture.  When  he  speaks  of  a  wine-growing  country,  as  Cal- 
vin well  observes,  the  Prophet  renders  vineyards  and  vine-dressers  promi- 
nent objects.  So  here,  when  he  speaks  of  a  country  abounding  in  fisheries 
and  fishermen,  he  describes  their  condition  as  an  index  or  symbol  of  the 
state  of  the  country.  In  like  manner,  a  general  distress  in  our  southern 
states  might  be  described  as  a  distress  among  the  sugar,  cotton,  or  tobac- 
co planters.  By  the  fishermen  of  this  verse,  Cocceius  understands  the  bish- 
ops, archbishops  and  patriarchs,  whose  sees  became  subjected  to  the  Mos- 
lem domination,  with  sarcastic  allusion  to  the  seal  of  the  fisherman  by  which 
the  pope  authenticates  his  briefs. 

V.  9.  And  ashamed  (disappointed  or  confounded)  are  the  workers  of 
combed  (or  hatchelled)  flax,  and  (he  weavers  of  white  (stuffs).  The  older 
writers  supposed  the  class  of  persons  here  described  to  be  the  manufacturers 
of  nets  for  fishing,  and  took  *mn  in  the  sense  of  perforated  open-work,  or 
net-work.  The  moderns  understand  the  verse  as  having  reference  to  the 
working  of  flax  and  manufacture  of  linen.  Knobel  supposes  *mn  to  mean 
cotton,  as  being  white  by  nature  and  before  it  is  wrought.  Some  of  the 
older  writers  identified  nip^a  with  sericum,  the  Latin  word  for  silk.  Calvin 
supposes  an  allusion  in  the  last  clause  to  the  diaphanous  garments  of  luxu- 
rious women.  Cocceius  applies  the  verse  to  those  who  would  force  all  men 
into  one  church  or  commonwealth,  like  fish  collected  in  a  net. 

V.  10.  And  her  pillars  (or  foundations)  are  broken  down,  all  labour- 
ers for  hire  are  grieved  at  heart.  Many  of  the  older  writers  suppose  the 
allusion  to  the  fisheries  to  be  still  continued,  and  arbitrarily  make  nintfj  mean 
nets  and  to  fish.  Others  take  niraj  in  the  sense  of  looms  or  weavers, 
and  nsb  r&S  in  that  of  brewers  or  makers  of  strong  drink,  which  last  inter- 
pretation is  as  old  as  the  Septuagint  version  (ol  noiovvxzg  zbv  ty&ov).  The 
simplest  exposition  of  the  verse  is  that  proposed  by  Gesenius  and  adopted 
by  most  succeeding  writers,  which  regards  this  as  a  general  description  of 
distress  extending  to  the  two  great  classes  of  society,  the  pillars  or  chief  men 
and  the  labourers  or  commonalty.  Hendewerk  less  naturally  understands 
by  the  Wflflti  or  foundations  the  agricultural  class  as  distinguished  from  manu- 
facturers and  traders.  All  the  late  writers  explain  ^aaa,  not  as  the  plural 
of  MX,  a  pool,  but  of  an  adjective  signifying  sorrowful,  from  one  of  the 
senses  of  the  same  root  in  Chaldee.  This  explanation  of  *HSM  removes  all 
necessity  and  ground  for  taking  to  in  any  other  than  its  usual  sense. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  363 

V.  11.  Only  foolish  (i.  e.  entirely  foolish)  are  the  princes  of  Zoan, 
(he  sages  of  the  counsellors  of  Pharaoh,  (their)  counsel  is  become  brutish 
(or  irrational).  How  can  ye  say  to  Pharaoh,  I  am  the  son  of  wise  (fathers), 
I  am  the  son  of  kings  of  old  1  The  reference  is  not  merely  to  perplexity 
in  actual  distress,  but  also  to  an  unwise  policy  as  one  of  the  causes  of  the 
distress  itself.  The  meaning  of  !}N  is  not  for  or  surely,  but  only,  nothing 
else,  exclusively.  Zoan,  the  Tanis  of  the  Greeks,  was  one  of  the  most  an- 
cient cities  of  Lower  Egypt  (Num.  13:  22),  and  a  royal  residence.  The 
name  is  of  Egyptian  origin  and  signifies  a  low  situation.  Pharaoh  was  a 
common  title  of  the  Egyptian  kings.  It  is  originally  an  Egyptian  noun 
with  the  article  prefixed,  ^znn  cannot  agree  directly  as  an  adjective  with 
w'^  (wise  counsellors) — but  must  either  be  in  apposition  with  it  (the  wise 
men,  counsellors  of  Pharaoh,  2  Kings  10 :  6) — or  be  understood  as  a  su- 
perlative (the  wisest  of  the  counsellors  of  Pharaoh).  The  statesmen  and 
courtiers  of  ancient  Egypt  belonged  to  the  sacerdotal  caste,  from  which 
many  of  the  kings  were  also  taken.  The  wisdom  of  Egypt  seems  to  have 
been  proverbial  in  the  ancient  world  (I  Kings  4:  30.  Acts  7:  22).  The 
last  clause  is  addressed  to  the  counsellors  themselves.  The  interrogation 
implies  the  absurdity  of  their  pretensions.  The  question  is  not,  how  can  you 
say  this  of  Pharaoh  (Luther),  or  how  can  you  dictate  this  to  Pharaoh,  i.  e. 
put  these  words  into  his  mouth  (Junius),  but  how  can  you  say  it,  each  one 
for  himself?  Hence  the  use  of  the  singular  number.  ^Dba  does  not  mean 
sages  or  counsellors  (Vitringa),  but  kings  as  elsewhere.  Cocceius  applies 
the  last  clause  to  the  popish  claim  of  apostolical  succession.  His  comment 
on  the  first  clause  may  be  quoted  as  a  characteristic  specimen  of  his  exege- 
sis. '  Consilium  certe  stultum  fuit  in  Belgio  novos  episcopatus  instituere, 
quod  factum  A.  1562.  Eodem  anno  primum  bellum  civile  religionis  causa 
motum  est  in  Gallia,  duce  inde  Francisco  Guisio,  hinc  Ludovico  Condaeo. 
Exitus  fuit  ut  regina  religionis  reformatae  exercitium  permitteret  sequenti 
anno  19  Martii.  An  principes  Galliae  per  principes  Tsoan  intelligi  pos- 
sint,  fortasse  magis  patebit  ex  v.  13.' 

V.  12.  Where  (are)  theyl  Where  (are)  thy  wise  men?  Pray  let  them 
tell  thee,  and  (if  that  is  too  much)  let  them  (at  least)  know,  what  Jeho- 
vah of  Hosts  hath  purposed  against  (or  concerning)  Egypt.  It  was  a  proof 
of  their  false  pretensions  that  so  far  from  being  able  to  avert  the  evil,  they 
could  not  even  foresee  it.  Knobel  *  thinks  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the 
belief  of  the  Egyptians,  as  recorded  by  Herodotus,  that  supernatural  fore- 
sight of  the  future  is  impossible,  an  article  of  faith  which  they  could  not 
more  devoutly  hold  than  Knobel  himself  appears  to  do.  &»  is  not  an 
adverb  of  time  equivalent  to  nunc  (Vulgate)  or  jam  (Junius),  but  a  particle 
of  exhortation  or  entreaty  not  unlike  the  Latin  age  (Cocceius).     WJJ  is 

23 


354  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX. 


not  synonymous  with  *W  (Sept.  Vulg.  Luther,  Clericus,  Augusti,  Barnes)  ; 
nor  does  it  mean  inquire  or  investigate  (Hitzig)  ;  nor  is  the  true  text  VWh 
(Seeker)  ;  but  the  word  is  to  be   taken   in  its  usual  sense  with  emphasis, 
or  let  them  even    know,  as  well  expressed  by  Calvin  (aut  etiam  sciant) 
and  by  Maurer  (quin  sciant).     The  repetition  of  the  interrogative  where  is 
highly   emphatic,  through  neglect  of  which  the  expression   is   materially 
weakened  in  the  ancient  versions  and  by  Luther,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  Hen- 
derson, DeWette,  Ewald,   Umbreit.     The  construction   is  assumed  to  be 
subjunctive  by   Calvin  (ut   annuncient),  relative   by  Junius  (qui  indicent), 
conditional  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  (wenn  sie  wissen),  and 'indefinite  by  Gesen- 
ius  (dass  man's  erfahre)  ;  but  the  simple  imperative,  retained  by  Ewald,  is  at 
once  more  exact  and  more  expressive.     The  sense  of  bs  is  not  upon  but 
either  concerning  or  against. 

V.  13.  Infatuated  are  the  chiefs  of  Zoan,  deceived  are  the  chiefs  of 
Noph,  and  they  have  misled  Egypt,  the  corner  (or  corner-stone)  of  her 
tribes.  There  is  no  need  of  supplying  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence 
(Luther).  The  first  verb  does  not  mean  to  fail  (Septuagint),  or  to  act 
lightly  (Cocceius),  or  to  act  foolishly  (Junius,  Vitringa,  Rosenmuller),  but 
to  be  rendered  or  become  foolish  (Vulgate),  to  be  infatuated  (Calvin). 
The  translation  they  are  fools  (DeWette)  is  correct  but  inadequate.  Noph 
is  the  Memphis  of  the  Greek  geographers,  called  Moph,  Hos.  9  :  6.  It  was 
one  of  the  chief  cities  of  ancient  Egypt,  the  royal  seat  of  Psammetichus. 
After  Alexandria  was  built  it  declined.  Arabian  writers  in  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth  centuries  speak  of  its  extensive  and  magnificent  ruins,  which  have 
now  almost  wholly  disappeared,  1K©3  is  explained  as  if  from  »b3  to  lift  up, 
by  the  Septuagint  (vipoo&riouv),  the  Peshito  and  Cocceius  (elati  sunt).  The 
Vulgate  renders  it  emarcuerunt.  All  others  make  it  the  passive  of  bt&JS,  to 
deceive.  riss  is  not  to  be  read  rbs  (Grotius),  nor  is  it  the  object  of  the 
preceding  verb  (Vulgate,  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Luther),  nor  governed  by  a  pre- 
position understood  (Cocceius  quoad  angulum,  Clericus  in  angulo),  but 
construed  collectively  with  ^nrj  (Calvin,  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  etc.).  It  is  a 
figure  not  for  the  nomes  (Clericus,  Vitringa,  Rosenmuller),  nor  for  the 
noble  families  (Luther),  nor  for  the  wise  men  (Calvin)  or  the  king  (J.  H. 
Michaelis),  but  for  the  chief  men  of  the  different  castes  (Hitzig,  Ewald). 
Knobel  conjectures  that  the  military  caste  may  have  been  predominant  at 
Memphis,  as  the  sacerdotal  was  at  Taflis.  .The  view  which  Cocceius  takes 
may  be  gathered  from  a  single  observation.  '  Gallia  et  Belgium  extremae 
orae  spiritualis  Aegypti  sunt.' 

V.  14.  Jehovah  hath  mingled  in  the  midst  of  her  a  spirit  of  confusion, 
and  they  have  misled  Egypt  in  all  its  work,  like  the  misleading  of  a  drunk- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  355 

ard  in  his  vomit.     This  verso  describes   the   folly  before  mentioned  as  the 
effect  not  of  natural  causes  or  of  accident  but  of  a  judicial  infliction.     7,0^5 
may  be  either  a  preterite  or  a  present,  but  not  a  future.     It  does  not  strictly 
mean  to  pour  out,  but  in  usage  is  nearly  equivalent,  from  its  frequent  appli- 
cation to  the   mixing  or  preparation  of  strong  drinks.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  5: 
22.)     There  is  no  need  of  reading  oa-.p  with  Seeker,  on  the  authority  of 
the  ancient  versions,  which  evidently  treat  the  singular  suffix  as  a  collective. 
The  antecedent  of  the  suffix  is  not  nss   (Hitzig)  but  ynx  (Knobel).     The 
translation  breast  or  bosom  is  too  specific.     Spirit  here  means  a  supernatu- 
ral influence.     WSJ*  is  not  error  or  perverscness,  but  subversion,  turning 
upside  down,  and  thence  perplexity,  confusion.    It  is  strongly  expressed  by 
the  Vulgate  (spiritum  vertiginis)   and  by  Luther  (Schwindelgeist).     The 
plural  *JtVi  may  possibly  agree  with  0W9,  but  it  may  be  more  naturally 
construed  with  the  Egyptians  understood,  or  taken  indefinitely,  as  equivalent 
to  a  passive  form,  they  have  misled  them,  i.  e.  they  have  been  misled.     By 
work  we  are  here  to  understand  affairs  and  interests.     The  masculine  form 
of  the  suffix  here  returns,  with  the  usual  reference  to  the  national   ancestor. 
nirpn  does  not  directly  denote  staggering,  much  less  rolling  or  wallowing, 
but  the  act  of  wandering  from  the  straight  course  ;  or,  retaining  the  passive 
form,  that  of  being  made  to  wander  from  it ;  or,  assuming  the  reflexive 
sense  of  Niphal,  that  of  making  one's  self  to  wander,  leading  one's  self 
astray.     The  same  verb  is  elsewhere  used   in   reference  to   the  unsteady 
motions  of  a  drunken  man  (Job  12  :  25.  Isai.  28  :  7). 

V.  15.  And  there  shall  not  be  to  Egypt  a  work  which  head  and  tail 
branch  and  rush  may  do.  i  is  neither  for  nor  in,  but  to,  as  usual  denoting 
possession,  Egypt  shall  not  have.  The  translation  shall  not  succeed  or  be 
completed  is  not  a  version  but  a  paraphrase  of  the  original,  m'ssb  is  not 
merely  a  deed  (Gesenius),  much  less  a  great  deed  (Hendewerk),  nor  does 
it  refer  exclusively  to  the  acts  or  occupations  before  mentioned ;  but  it 
means  any  thing  done  or  to  be  done,  including  private  business  and  public 
affairs.  The  figures  of  head  and  tail,  branch  and  rush,  are  used,  as  in  ch. 
9 :  13,  to  denote  all  classes  of  society,  or  rather  the  extremes  between 
which  the  others  are  included.  The  Septuagint  translates  the  last  two 
beginning  and  end.  The  Targum  makes  them  all  mean  chiefs  and  rulers. 
The  Peshito,  by  a  strange  repetition  and  inversion,  has  head  and  tail,  tail 
and  head.  Cocceius  thinks  it  easy  to  trace  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy 
in  the  history  of  Europe  from  1590  to  1608. 

V.  16.  In  that  day  shall  Egypt  be  like  women,  and  shall  fear  and 
tremble  from  before  the  shaking  of  the  hand  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  which  he 
(is)  shaking  over  it.     The  comparison  in  the  first  clause  is  a  common  one 


356  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX. 


for  terror  and  the  loss  of  courage.  *Mfq  may  be  rendered  on  account  of, 
which  idea  is  certainly  included,  but  the  true  force  of  the  original  expression 
is  best  retained  by  a  literal  translation,  "p  psnsn  is  not  the  act  of  beckoning 
for  the  enemy,  but  that  of  threatening  or  preparing  to  strike.  The  reference 
is  not  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  but  more  generally  to  the 
indications  of  divine  displeasure.  At  this  verse  Hitzig  supposes  the  forgery 
of  Onias  to  begin,  but  admits  that  it  cannot  be  proved  from  the  use  of  the 
masculine  suffix  in  reference  to  Egypt,  which  occurs  several  times  in  what 
he  assumes  to  be  the  genuine  part  of  this  very  chapter,  nor  does  it  follow 
from  the  repetition  of  the  phrase  in  that  day  at  the  beginning  of  vs.  15,  18, 
23,  24,  as  this  formula  occurs  with  equal  frequency  in  the  seventh  chapter. 
Knobel  observes,  moreover,  that  this  verse  and  the  next  bear  the  same  rela- 
tion to  v.  4  that  vs.  11-15  do  to  vs.  1-3,  and  are  therefore  necessary  to 
complete  the  context. 

V.  17.  And  the  land  ofJudah  shall  be  for  a  terror  (or  become  a  terror) 
unto  Egypt,  every  person  to  whom  one  mentions  it  (or  every  one  who  recalls 
it  to  his  own  mind)  shall  fear  before  the  purpose  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts  which 
he  is  purposing  against  it.  This  verse  relates,  not  to  the  destruction  of 
Sennacherib's  army  in  Judah,  nor  to  the  approach  of  the  Assyrians  from 
that  quarter,  nor  to  an  attack  upon  Egypt  by  Judah  itself,  but  to  the  new 
feelings  which  would  be  entertained  by  the  Egyptians  towards  the  God  of 
the  Jews  and  the  true  religion.  Judah,  in  a  political  and  military  sense, 
might  still  appear  contemptible  ;  but  in  another  aspect,  and  for  other  rea- 
sons, it  would  be  an  object  of  respect  and  even  fear  to  the  Egyptians.  A 
different  sense  is  put  upon  the  verse  by  Schultens,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and 
Dathe,  who  take  K»n  in  the  sense  of  refuge,  deduced  from  an  Arabic  analo- 
gy. V&S  is  referred  by  some  interpreters  to  Judah,  but  the  change  of  gen- 
der renders  it  more  probable  that  it  relates  to  Egypt.  The  sense  will  then 
be  that  the  knowledge  of  God's  purpose  against  Egypt  will  dispose  its  in- 
habitants to  look  with  awe  upon  the  chosen  people.  There  is  no  need  of 
taking  Wjfc  with  Hendewerk  in  the  strict  sense  of  soil  or  ground  as  distin- 
guished from  the  people.  "hVk  is  not  to  be  construed  with  ^ins?  but  with 
i^sn.  This  last  verb  Ewald  takes  in  the  strict  sense  of  causing  to  remem- 
ber or  recalling  to  mind ;  most  other  writers  in  the  secondary  but  more 
usual  sense  of  mentioning.  According  to  Cocceius,  the  Judah  of  this  verse 
is  the  northern  part  of  Europe,  in  which  the  Reformation  was  successfully 
established,  and  which  holds  the  same  relative  position  with  respect  to  the 
unreformed  regions,  that  Judea  occupied  in  reference  to  Egypt. 

V.  18.  In  that  day  there  shall  be  Jive  cities  in  the  land  of  Egypt  speak- 
ing the  lip  (i.  e.  language)  of  Canaan,  and  swearing  to  Jehovah  of  Hosts. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XIX.  357 

The  city  of  destruction  shall  be  said  to  one  (i.  e.  shall  one   bo  called). 
In  that  day,  according  to  prophetic  usage,  is  a  somewhat  indefinite  expres- 
sion, and  may  either  mean  during  or  after  the  distresses  just  described.    Ca- 
naan is  here  put  for  the  land  of  Canaan  (as  in   Ex.  15:  15)  and  the  lan- 
guage of  Canaan  for  the  Hebrew  language,  not  because  it  was  the  lan- 
guage of  the  old  Canaanites,  but  because  it  was  spoken  in  the  land  which 
they  once  occupied.     Some  of  the   later  writers  understand  what  is  here 
said  strictly  as  denoting  an  actual  prevalence  of  the  Hebrew  language,  while 
others  take  it  as  a  strong  expression  for  such  intimate  union,  social,  commer- 
cial, and  political,  as  would  seem  to  imply  a  community  of  language.     The 
older  writers  very  generally  apply  the  terms   to  religious   union   and  com- 
munion.    Calvin  explains  lip  or  language  as  a  figure  for  confession  or  pro- 
fession, and  the  speaking  of  the  language  of  Canaan  for  a  public  profession 
of  the  true  religion.     Vitringa   gains  the  same  end  by  a  reference  to  the 
phrase  speaking  the  same  things,  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  con- 
formity of  feeling  and  opinion.    (See  1  Cor.  1  :    10.)     He  also  admits  the 
possibility  of  an  allusion  to  the  dialect  of  saints  or  believers  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  the  world,  and  to  the  study  of  the  literal  Hebrew  as  promoted 
by  the  spread  of  the  true  religion.     Cocceius  and  some  others  understand 
directly  by  the  use  of  the  language  of  Canaan,  the   study  of  the  Bible 
or  rather  the  reception  and   promulgation  of  its   doctrines.     The  simplest 
interpretation  of  the  phrase  is,  that  in   itself  it  denotes  intimate  intercourse 
and  union  generally,  but  that  the  idea  of  religious  unity  is  here  suggested  by 
the  context   and  especially   by   the  following  clause.     Many   interpreters 
appear  to  regard  the  phrases  swearing  by  and  swearing  to  as  perfectly  synony- 
mous.    The  former  act  does  certainly  imply  the  recognition  of  the  deity  by 
whom  one  swears,  especially  if  oaths  be  regarded  as  they  are  in  Scripture 
as  solemn  acts  of  religious  worship.     But  the  phrase  swearing  to  conveys 
the  additional  idea  of  doing  homage  and  acknowledging  a  sovereign  by 
swearing   fealty  or  allegiance  to  him.     This  is  the  only  meaning  that  the 
words  can  bear  in  2  Chr.  15:  14,  and  in  Isai.  45:  23  the   two  phrases 
seem  to  be  very  clearly  distinguished.     The  distinction  intended  in  Zeph. 
1  :  5  is  not  so  clear.     The  act  of  thus  professing  the  true  faith  and  submit- 
ting to  the  true  Cod  is  ascribed  in  the  verse  before  us  to  five  towns  or  cities. 
Of  this  phrase  there  are  three  distinct   interpretations.     Gesenius,  Ewald, 
Knobel,    and    others,    understand    five   as   a  round  or  indefinite   number, 
meaning  few  or  many,  and  derived  either  from  Egyptian  usage  (Gen.  43  : 
34.  45:  ^2.  47  :  2),  or  from  the  practice  of  counting  on  the  fingers.     Thus 
understood,  the  .sense  is  simply  that  a  number  of  cities  shall  do  so  and  so. 
Another  class  of  writers  understand  the  words  strictly  as  denoting  five  and 
neither  more  nor  less.    The  five  cities  meant  are  supposed  by  Vitringa  to  be 
Heliopolis,  Memphis,   Sais,  Bubastus,   Alexandria  ;    by  Clericus,  Migdol, 


358  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XTX 


Tahpanhes,  Memphis,  Heliopolis,  and  one  in  Pathros,  probably  No-ammon 
or  Diospolis ;  by  Hitzig  the  same,  except  the  last,  for  which  he  substitutes 
Leontopolis ;  by  Hendewerk,  the  five  cities  of  the  Philistines,  which  he 
supposes  to  be  here  considered  as  belonging  to  Egypt.  Among  the  five 
cities  perhaps  referred  to,  Barnes  includes  Pathros  or  Thebais,  which  was 
not  a  city  at  all.  A  third  interpretation  understands  the  words  as  expres- 
sive not  of  absolute  number  but  proportion  ;  five  out  of  the  twenty  thousand 
cities  which  Herodotus  says  Egypt  contained  ;  or  out  of  the  one  thousand 
which  Calvin  thinks  a  more  reasonable  estimate  ;  or  five  out  of  ten,  i.  e.  one 
half;  or  five  out  of  six,  which  is  Calvin's  own  interpretation.  The  objec- 
tion to  the  first  or  indefinite  construction  is  the  want  of  any  clear  example 
of  this  number  being  used  in  that  way  without  something  in  the  context  to 
afford  a  standard  of  comparison.  (See  Lev.  26  :  8.  1  Cor.  14 :  19.)  The 
objection  to  the  second  or  absolute  construction  is  the  impossibility  of  fixing 
certainly  what  five  are  meant,  or  of  tracing  the  fulfilment  of  so  definite  a 
prophecy,  or  even  of  ascertaining  from  the  context  any  reason  why  just  five 
should  be  distinguished  in  this  manner.  Of  the  third  class  or  relative  con- 
structions, that  of  Calvin  is  to  be  preferred,  because  the  others  arbitrarily 
assume  a  standard  of  comparison  (twenty  thousand,  ten  thousand,  ten  etc.), 
whereas  this  hypothesis  finds  it  in  the  verse  itself,  Jive  professing  the  true 
religion  to  one  rejecting  it.  Most  of  the  other  interpretations  understand 
the  one  to  be  included  in  the  five,  as  if  he  had  said  one  of  them.  As  rnub 
admits  either  of  these  senses,  or  rather  applications,  the  question  must  de- 
pend upon  the  meaning  given  to  the  rest  of  the  clause.  Even  on  Calvin's 
hypothesis,  however,  the  proportion  indicated  need  not  be  taken  with  mathe- 
matical precision.  What  appears  to  be  meant  is  that  five-sixths,  i.  e.  a  very 
large  proportion,  shall  profess  the  true  religion,  while  the  remaining  sixth 
persists  in  unbelief.  It  shall  be  said  to  one,  i.  e.  one  shall  be  addressed  as 
follows,  or  called  by  the  following  name.  This  periphrasis  is  common  in 
Isaiah,  but  is  never  applied,  as  Gesenius  observes,  to  the  actual  appellation, 
but  always  to  a  description  or  symbolical  title.  (See  Isai.  4:3.  61  :  6. 
62  :  4.)  This  may  be  urged  as  an  argument  against  the  explanation  of  b^rtn 
as  a  proper  name.  The  Hebrew  form  is  retained  in  the  Complutensian  text  of 
the  Septuagint  Q.4fiQ*S)i  by  Theodotion  and  Aquila  fyfqif),  by  the  Peshito 
(uojci),  and  by  Luther  (Irheres).  Sixteen  manuscripts  and  several  editions 
read  binn,  and  this  is  adopted  as  the  true  text  by  most  of  the  modern 
writers.  It  is  also  supposed  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Greek  form  'Axtoeg 
above  quoted.  Jerome  compares  it  with  bn»l  a  potsherd,  and  refers  to  the 
town  which  the  Greeks  called  'OcTQaxivrj  (i.  e.  earthen).  Others  suppose 
an  allusion  to  Tahpanes,  the  brick-kilns  of  which  are  mentioned  Jer.  43 :  9. 
Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  derives  the  meaning  of  the  name  from  the 
Arabic  11*3-2*  and  renders  it  deliverance  (Errettung).    Ewald,  with  reference 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  359 

to  the  same  root,  renders  it  fortune  or  happiness  (Gluckstadt).     But  most 
of  those  who  adopt  this  reading  give  to  o*n  the  sense  of  sun,  which  it  has 
in  several  places  (Judg.  8:  13.   14:  18.  Job  9:  7),  and  regard  the  whole 
phrase  as  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  Bcthshemesk  (dwelling  of  the  sun)  and 
the  Greek  Heliopolis  (city  of  the  sun),  the  name  of  a  famous  town  of  Lower 
Egypt,  in  the  Heliopolitan  Nome,  so  called  from  it.     In  this  nome,  Onias, 
a  fugitive  priest  from  Palestine,  about   150  years  before  Christ,  prevailed 
upon  Ptolemy  Philometor  to  erect  a  temple  for  the  Jews  of  Egypt,  an  event 
which  some  suppose  to  be  predicted  here.     The  exact  site  of  this  temple, 
although  in  the  nome  just  mentioned,  was  at  Leontopolis  (or  city  of  the 
lion),  and  this  name  also  has  been  found  by  some  interpreters  in  the  predic- 
tion.    J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Dathe,  following  a  suggestion  made  by  Iken, 
identify  the  common  reading  Din  with  the  Arabic  /j*^.     But  this  has 
been  shown  by  later  writers  to  be  merely  a  poetical  epithet  of  the  lion,  de- 
noting its  voracity.     Rosenmiiller,  in  his  larger  Scholia,  agrees  with  Hezel 
in  explaining  Din  from  the  Syriac  analogy  as  signifying  safety  or  salvation. 
But  Gesenius  has  shown  that  there  is  no  such  Syriac  word,  and  that  the 
Syriac  writers  quoted  merely  give  conjectural  explanations  of  the  Hebrew 
word  before  us.     Rosenmiiller,  therefore,  in  the  Compendium  of  his  Scho- 
lia, adopts  Gesenius's  interpretation  given  above,  while  Gesenius  himself, 
in  his  Thesaurus,  adopts  that  of  Vitringa  and  the  Vulgate  (civitas  solis). 
This  is  also  given  by  Hitzig,  who  identifies  Din  the  sun  with  Din  a  scab 
(Deut.  28:  27),  the  disk  of  the  former  being  so  called  on  account  of  its 
scratched,  scraped,  or  smoothed  appearance,  an  etymological  deduction  of 
which  Umbreit  gravely  signifies  his  approbation.  All  the  interpretations  which 
have  now  been  mentioned  either  depart  from  the  common  text  or  explain  it  by 
some  forced  or  foreign  analogy.     If,  however,  we  proceed  upon  the  only  safe 
principle  of  adhering  to  the  common  text  and  to  Hebrew  usage,  without  the 
strongest  reasons  for  abandoning  either  or  both,  no  explanation  of  the  name 
can  be  so  satisfactory  as  that  given  by  Calvin   (civitas  desolationis)  and 
the  English  Version  (city  of  destruction).    It  is  very  remarkable  that  both  the 
readings  (oin  and  Din)  appear  to  be  combined  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase: 
1  the  city  of  Bethshemesh  (i.  e.  Heliopolis),  which  is  to  be  destroyed. '    This 
would  seem  to  imply  that  the  text  or  the  meaning  of  the  word  was  already 
doubtful  and  disputed  at  the  date  of  that  old  version.     It  has  been  objected 
to  the  common  reading  and  the  sense  just  put  upon  it,  that  a  threatening  of 
destruction  would  here  be  out  of  place.     But  on  Calvin's  hypothesis,  there 
is  a  promise  of  salvation  to  five-sixths.    It  is  also  a  favourite  idea  with  some 
writers,  that  the   text  was  corrupted  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  in  order 
to  convert  what  seemed   at  least  to  be  an  explicit  prediction  of  the  tem- 
ple of  Onias  into  a  threatening  of  its   destruction.     To  the  same  source 
some  ascribe  the  reading  Dinn  which  is  found  in  a  few  manuscripts.     On 


360  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX. 


the  other  hand,  the  common  text  of  the  Septuagint  version  has  aoedex 
(pnsn),  which  is  supposed  to  have  been  introduced  (from  ch.  1 :  26)  by 
the  Egyptian  Jews  in  order  to  put  honour  on  their  temple.  Even  this, 
however,  is  pressed  into  the  service  of  other  hypotheses  by  Iken,  who  iden- 
tifies aasdh  with  an  Arabic  word  used  by  the  poets  in  describing  the  appear- 
ance of  a  lion,  and  by  Le  Moyne,  who  argues  from  Mai.  3 :  20,  that  p'ns 
and  np"is  were  applied  to  the  sun.  Thus  the  same  blunder  of  the  Seventy 
is  made  to  prove  that  the  Hebrew  word  means  Heliopolis  and  Leontopolis. 
Hitzig,  as  we  have  seen  already,  looks  upon  this  whole  passage  from  the 
sixteenth  verse  as  a  fabrication  of  Onias,  intended  to  facilitate  the  rearing 
of  his  temple.  But  in  that  case  he  would  surely  have  made  it  more  explicit, 
or  at  least  have  prevented  its  conversion  into  an  anathema  against  himself. 
It  is  not  even  true  that  he  interpreted  this  clause  as  pointing  out  the  place 
for  the  erection,  as  alleged  by  Lowth  and  others  after  him.  Josephus  merely 
says  that  he  appealed  to  the  prediction  of  an  altar  to  Jehovah  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,  which  would  hardly  have  contented  him  if  he  had  understood  the 
verse  before  us  as  expressly  naming  either  Heliopolis  or  Leontopolis.  These 
facts,  when  taken  in  connexion  with  the  usage  of  b  •rapt*  already  stated,  make 
it  altogether  probable  that  G^nri  w  is  not  a  proper  name  but  a  descriptive 
and  prophetic  title,  meaning  (in  accordance  with  the  constant  usage  of  the 
verb  D^ri)  the  city  of  destruction.  Kimchi,  who  puts  this  sense  upon  the 
words,  but  is  puzzled  by  the  threatening  against  one  of  the  five  towns,  as  he 
supposes  it  to  be,  absurdly  makes  the  words  to  mean  that  the  five  cities 
would  be  so  devoted  to  the  true  religion  that  if  either  of  them  should  apos- 
tatize the  others  would  destroy  it.  Scarcely  more  natural  is  the  explanation 
of  the  words  by  Junius  and  Tremellius,  as  meaning  a  city  almost  destroyed 
or  saved  from  destruction.  Schmidius  more  ingeniously  evades  the  difficulty 
by  taking  Sntt  in  an  active  sense,  a  city  of  destruction  i.  e.  to  its  enemies  or 
those  of  the  true  religion.  Both  the  hypotheses  last  mentioned  give  to  nns< 
the  distributive  sense  of  each  or  every  one,  which  it  sometimes  derives  from 
repetition  or  the  context.  (See  Ezek.  1  :  6.)  Hendewerk,  who  supposes  the 
five  towns  of  the  Philistines  to  be  meant,  understands  this  as  a  prophecy  that 
one  of  them  (Ashdod)  should  be  destroyed  but  afterwards  rebuilt,  with  an 
allusion  to  the  derivation  of  the  name  from  *n«i  to  destroy.  But  of  all  the 
explanations  of  the  common  text,  the  simplest  is  the  one  proposed  by  Calvin, 
which  supposes  the  whole  verse  to  mean  that  for  one  town  which  shall  perish 
in  its  unbelief  five  shall  profess  the  true  faith  and  swear  fealty  to  Jehovah. 
The  simplicity  of  this  interpretation,  and  its  strict  agreement  with  the  general 
tenor  of  the  passage  as  a  prophetic  picture  of  great  changes  in  the  state  of 
Egypt,  serve  at  the  same  time  to  commend  the  common  reading  as  the  true 
one.  By  the  five  cities  Cocceius  understands  the  five  states  in  which  the 
Reformation  was  permanently  established  (Great  Britain,  Denmark,  Swe- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  361 

den,  Holland,  and  northern  Germany),  and  by  desolation  or  destruction 
what  they  subsequently  suffered  by  war  and  otherwise  from  the  popish 
powers. 

V.  1 9.    In  that  day  there  shall  be  an  altar  to  Jehovah  in  the  midst  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  at  (or  near)  its  border  to  Jehovah.     It  has 
been  disputed  whether  we  are  here  to  understand  an  altar  for  sacrifice  or 
an  altar  to  serve  as  a  memorial  (Josh.  22 :  26,  27).     It  has  also  been  dis- 
puted whether  the  prohibition  of  altars  and  consecrated  pillars  (Lev.  26:  1. 
Deut.  12:  5.   16:  22)  was  applicable  only  to  the  Jews  or  to  Palestine, 
leaving  foreign  Jews  or  proselytes  at  liberty  to  rear  these  sacred  structures 
as  the  Patriarchs  did  of  old  (Gen.  28:  18.  35:  14).     The  necessity  of 
answering  these  questions  is  removed  by  a  just  view  of  the  passage,  as  pre- 
dicting the  prevalence  of  the  true  religion  and  the  practice  of  its  rites,  in 
language  borrowed  from  the  Mosaic  or  rather  from  the  patriarchal  institu- 
tions.    As  we  might  now  speak  of  a  missionary  pitching  his  tent  at  Hebron 
or  at  Shechem,  without  intending  to  describe  the  precise  form  of  his  hab- 
itation, so  the  Prophet  represents  the  converts  to  the  true  faith  as  erect- 
ing an  altar  and   a  pillar  to  the  Lord  in  Egypt,  as  Abraham  and  Jacob 
did  of  old  in  Canaan.     A  still  more  exact  illustration  is  afforded  by  the 
frequent  use  among  ourselves  of  the  word  altar  to  denote  the  practice  of 
devotion,  especially  in  families.     There  is  a  double  propriety  and  beauty 
in  the  use  of  the  word  nnatE,  because  while  it  instantly  recalls  to  mind  the 
patriarchal  practice,  it  is  at  the  same  time  finely  descriptive  of  the  obelisk, 
an  object  so  characteristic  of  Egypt  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  its  emblem. 
Both  the  obelisk  and  the  patriarchal  pillar,  being  never  in  the  human  form, 
are  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  statues  or  images,  although  the  latter 
word  is  sometimes  used  to  represent  the  Hebrew  one  in  the  English  Version. 
(See  2  Kings  3:2.    10:  26.  Mic.  5:  13.)     Those  explanations  of  the 
verse  which  suppose  the  altar  and  the  pillar,  or  the  centre  and  the  border  of 
the  land,  to  be  contrasted,  are  equally  at  variance  with  good  taste  and  the 
usage  of  the  language,  which  continually  separates  in  parallel  clauses  words 
and  things  which  the  reader  is  expected  to  combine.     See  an  example  of 
this  usage  in  the  sixth  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter.     As  the  wintering  of 
the  beasts  and  the  summering  of  the  birds  are  there  intended  to  denote  the 
presence  of  both  beasts  and  birds  throughout  the  year,  so  here  the  altar  in 
the  midst  of  the  land  and  the  pillar  at  its  border  denote  altars  and  pillars 
through  its  whole  extent.     This  is  much  more  natural  than  Ewald's  suppo- 
sition that  the  words  are  expressive  of  a  gradual  progress  or  extension  of  the 
truth. 

V.  20.   And  it  shall  be  for  a  sign  and  for  a  testimony  to  Jehovah  of 
Hosts  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  that  they  shall  cry  to  Jehovah  from  the  pres- 


362  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX. 

ence  of  oppressors,  and  he  will  send  them  a  deliverer  and  a  mighty  one  and 
save  them.  The  older  writers  for  the  most  part  construe  r\*r\)  with  what 
goes  before :  '  and  it  (or  they)  shall  be  etc.'  In  that  case  we  must  either 
suppose  an  enallage  of  gender  (so  as  to  make  trappq  the  subject  of  the  verb) 
or  an  enallage  of  number  (so  as  to  construe  it  with  both  the  nouns),  or  else 
refer  it  to  the  remoter  antecedent  nato.  Any  of  these  constructions  would 
be  admissible  if  absolutely  necessary  ;  but  in  the  case  before  us  they  are  all 
superseded  by  a  simpler  one  now  commonly  adopted.  This  refers  hjni  not 
at  all  to  what  precedes  but  to  what  follows,  taking  19  in  its  proper  sense  of 
on,  that.  *  This  shall  be  a  sign  and  a  witness  to  (i.  e.  with  respect  to,  in 
behalf  of)  Jehovah  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  viz.  that  when  they  cry  etc.'  He 
will  afford  a  providential  testimony  in  behalf  of  his  own  being,  presence,  and 
supremacy,  by  saving  those  who  cry  to  him.  Those  who  refer  rwi  to  what 
goes  before  either  take  the  other  verbs  in  the  past  tense  (a  sign  and  a  tes- 
timony that  they  cried),  which  is  entirely  arbitrary,  or  give  to  ^a  its  usual 
sense  of  for,  because  (for  they  shall  cry),  in  which  case  the  connexion  is 
not  obvious  between  their  crying  and  the  altar's  being  a  sign  and  witness  for 
Jehovah.  Even  then,  however,  we  may  understand  the  Prophet  to  mean 
that  wlien  they  cry  at  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  he  will  answer  and  deliver 
them,  and  thus  the  altar  will  bear  witness  to  him.  But  as  nothing  is  said 
of  crying  at  the  altar,  the  other  construction  is  to  be  preferred,  which  makes 
the  hearing  of  their  prayers  and  their  deliverance  from  suffering  the  sign  and 
witness  in  behalf  of  Jehovah,  a1]  may  be  either  an  adjective  meaning  great 
or  the  participle  of  ari  to  strive,  especially  at  law,  and  then  to  plead  the 
cause  or  take  the  part  of  any  one,  the  participle  of  which  might  well  be 
used  to  signify  an  advocate,  patron,  or  defender.  Calvin  and  others,  adopt- 
ing the  former  explanation  of  the  word  (salvatorem  et  principem),  apply  it 
to  Christ.  Vitringa,  laying  stress  upon  the  word  as  meaning  great,  regards 
it  as  a  proof  that  the  deliverer  here  mentioned  was  Alexander  the  Great,  or 
his  Egyptian  successor  Ptolemy,  also  called  the  Great  and  (by  a  singular 
coincidence)  Soter  or  the  Saviour.  The  whole  force  of  this  ingenious  com- 
bination lies  in  the  explanation  of  2ft  as  an  adjective.  It  cannot,  therefore, 
be  consistently  maintained  by  those  who  adopt  the  other  supposition,  as 
Henderson  does.  Barnes  also  weakens  the  argument  in  favour  of  Vitringa's 
exposition  by  exchanging  great  for  powerful.  The  other  explanation  of 
a^  as  a  participle  is  found  in  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  is  adopted  by  most 
modern  writers.  It  is  also  favoured  by  the  fact  that  the  adjective  is  usually 
written  a*i  when  not  in  pause,  although  some  cases  of  the  other  pointing 
do  occur  (e.g.  Gen.  36:  7.  Josh.  11:4),  and  Hitzig  thinks  the  form  here 
sufficiently  accounted  for  by  the  accompanying  accent.  As  to  the  appli- 
cation of  the  term  in  either  case,  besides  that  adopted  by  Vitringa  and 
others,  may  be  mentioned  the  rabbinical  opinion  that  it  means  the  angel 


\ 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  363 


who  destroyed  Sennacherib's  army,  and  the  opinion  of  some  modern  writers 
that  it  denotes  Psammetichus.  A  name,  which  admits  of  being  plausibly 
applied  to  things  so  far  apart  and  unlike,  may  safely  be  regarded  as  generic  in 
its  import.  Even  if  the  language  of  this  verse  by  itself  might  seem  to  point 
to  a  particular  deliverer,  the  comprehensive  language  of  the  context  would 
forbid  its  reference  to  any  such  exclusively.  If,  as  we  have  seen  reason  to 
believe,  the  chapter  is  a  prophecy  not  of  a  single  event  but  of  a  great  pro- 
gressive change  to  be  wrought  in  the  condition  of  Egypt  by  the  introduction 
of  the  true  religion,  the  promise  of  the  verse  before  us  must  be  that  when 
they  cried  God  would  send  them  a  deliverer,  a  promise  verified  not  once  but 
often,  not  by  Ptolemy  or  Alexander  only  but  by  others,  and  in  the  highest 
sense  by  Christ  himself.  The  assertion,  that  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy 
was  exhausted  by  events  before  the  advent,  is  as  easily  contradicted  as 
advanced.  It  is  admitted  that  the  rise  of  Alexander's  power  was  contem- 
poraneous with  a  great  increase  of  Jewish  population  and  Jewish  influence 
in  Egypt,  and  also  with  a  great  improvement  in  the  social  and  political 
condition  of  the  people.  This  was  still  more  remarkably  the  case  when 
Christianity  was  introduced,  and  who  shall  say  what  is  yet  to  be  witnessed 
and  experienced  in  Egypt  under  the  influence  of  this  same  gospel  ?  In  the 
language  of  this  verse  there  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  frequent  statement 
in  the  book  of  Judges,  that  the  people  cried  to  God  and  he  raised  them  up 
deliverers  who  saved  them  from  their  oppressors  (Judg.  2 :  16.  3:9  etc.). 
Cocceius  applies  these  terms  to  the  various  deliverers  who  were  raised  up  to 
free  the  Reformed  Church  from  its  enemies. 

V.  21 .  And  Jehovah  shall  be  known  to  Egypt,  and  Egypt  (or  the  Egyp- 
tians) shall  know  Jehovah  in  that  day,  and  shall  serve  (with)  sacrifice  and 
offering,  and  shall  vow  a  vow  to  Jehovah  and  perform  it.  This  is  not  the 
prediction  of  a  new  event,  but  a  repetition  in  another  form  of  the  preceding 
promise.  The  first  clause  may  be  understood  as  containing  an  emphatic 
repetition,  or  r*iia  may  be  taken  in  a  reflexive  sense  as  meaning  he  shall 
make  himself  known,  in  which  case  each  of  the  parties  is  the  subject  of  an 
active  verb.  The  second  clause  is  still  but  another  variation  of  the  same 
idea.  What  is  first  described  as  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  is  after- 
wards represented  as  his  service,  the  expressions  being  borrowed  from  the 
ancient  ritual.  If  the  last  clause  be  literally  understood,  we  must  either 
regard  it  as  an  unfounded  expectation  of  the  Prophet  which  was  never  ful- 
filled, or  suppose  that  it  relates  to  an  express  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
or  assume  that  the  ancient  rites  and  forms  are  hereafter  to  be  re-established. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  figurative  explanation  is  in  perfect  agreement  with  the 
usage  of  both  testaments  and  with  the  tenor  of  the  prophecy  itself.  Bloody 
and  unbloody  sacrifice  is  here  combined  with  vows  in  order  to  express  the 


364 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XIX. 


totality  of  ritual  services  as  a  figure  for  those  of  a  more  spiritual  nature.  The 
express  mention  of  the  Egyptians  themselves  as  worshipping  Jehovah  shows 
that  they  are  also  meant  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  not,  as  Hitzig  imagines, 
the  Jews  resident  in  Egypt,  whose  example  and  experience  of  God's  favour 
were  to  be  the  means  of  bringing  those  around  them  to  the  knowledge  and 
reception  of  the  truth.  Gesenius  explains  H*t3g  as  a  synonyme  of  to,  and 
makes  it  govern  the  noun  directly  in  the  sense  of  performing  or  offering 
sacrifice  etc.  Hitzig  adopts  the  same  construction,  and  moreover  makes  this 
use  of  ^as  symptomatic  of  a  later  writer.  Hendewerk  justly  condemns  this 
reasoning  as  exceedingly  unfair,  when  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term 
gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  and  the  absolute  use  of  ins  in  the  sense  of  serv- 
ing God  occurs  elsewhere  (Job  36:  11),  and  the  same  ellipsis  in  this  very 
chapter  (v.  23). 

V.  22.  And  Jehovah  shall  smite  Egypt  (or  the  Egyptians),  smiting 
and  healing,  and  they  shall  return  unto  Jehovah,  and  he  shall  be  entreated 
of  them  and  shall  heal  them.  Here  again  the  second  clause  contains  no 
advance  upon  the  first,  and  the  whole  verse  no  advance  upon  the  foregoing 
context,  but  an  iteration  of  the  same  idea  in  another  form.  This  verse  may 
indeed  be  regarded  as  a  recapitulation  of  the  whole  preceding  prophecy, 
consisting  as  it  does  of  an  extended  threatening  (vs.  1-17)  followed  by  an 
ample  promise  (vs.  18-21).  As  if  he  had  said,  thus  will  God  smite  Egypt 
and  then  heal  it.  That  great  heathen  power,  with  respect  to  which  the 
Jews  so  often  sinned  both  by  undue  confidence  and  undue  dread,  was  to  be 
broken  and  reduced ;  but  in  exchange  for  this  political  decline,  and  partly 
as  a  consequence  of  it,  the  Egyptians  should  experience  benefits  far  greater 
than  they  ever  before  knew.  Thus  would  Jehovah  smite  and  heal,  or  smite 
but  so  as  afterwards  to  heal,  which  seems  to  be  the  force  of  the  reduplicated 
verb.  (See  Ewald  $  540.)  The  meaning  is  not  simply  that  the  stroke 
should  be  followed  by  healing,  nor  is  it  simply  that  the  stroke  should  itself 
possess  a  healing  virtue ;  but  both  ideas  seem  to  be  included.  Returning 
to  Jehovah  is  a  common  figure  for  repentance  and  conversion,  even  in  refer- 
ence to  the  heathen.   (See  Psalm  22 :  28.) 

V.  23.  In  that  day  there  shall  be  a  highway  from  Egypt  to  Assyria, 
and  Assyria  shall  come  into  Egypt  and  Egypt  into  Assyria,  and  Egyvt 
(or  the  Egyptians)  shall  serve  with  Assyria.  No  translation  will  convey 
the  precise  form  of  the  original,  in  which  the  ancestral  names  d^nxa  and 
nws*  are  put  not  only  for  their  descendants  but  for  the  countries  which  they 
occupied.  Thus  in  one  clause  we  read  of  coming  into  B^Sfy  while  in  the 
next  the  same  name  is  construed  with  a  plural  verb.  No  one,  it  is  probable, 
has  ever  yet  maintained  that  a  road  was  literally  opened  between  Egypt 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  365 

and  Assyria,  or  that  Isaiah  expected  it.  All  classes  of  interpreters  agree 
that  the  opening  of  the  highway  is  a  figure  for  easy,  free,  and  intimate  com- 
munication. This  unanimous  admission  of  a  metaphor  in  this  place  not  only 
shows  that  the  same  mode  of  interpretation  is  admissible  in  the  other  parts 
of  the  same  prophecy,  but  makes  it  highly  probable  that  what  is  said  of 
altars  and  sacrifices  is  to  be  likewise  so  understood.  The  Chaldee  Paraphrast 
alone  seems  to  have  understood  the  second  clause  as  having  reference  to 
hostile  communication.  Some  understand  it  as  relating  only  to  commercial 
intercourse  ;  others  confine  it  to  religious  union.  But  the  same  thing  is  true 
here  and  in  v.  18,  that  while  the  language  itself  denotes  intimate  connexion 
and  free  intercourse  in  general,  the  context  renders  the  idea  of  spiritual 
union  prominent.  The  last  clause  admits  of  two  constructions,  one  of 
which  regards  n«  as  the  objective  particle  and  understands  the  clause  to 
mean  that  the  Egyptians  shall  serve  the  Assyrians ;  the  other  makes  ra  a 
preposition  and  explains  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  Egyptians  shall  serve 
(God)  ivith  the  Assyrians,  In  favour  of  the  first  is  the  constant  usage  of 
TSP  with  nil  (Gen.  14:4.  27  :  40.  31:6.  Ex.  14 :  12  etc.)  and  the  unani- 
mous agreement  of  the  ancient  versions.  But  the  sense  thus  yielded  is  at 
variance  with  the  context,  what  precedes  and  follows  being  clearly  expressive 
of  a  union  so  complete  and  equal  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  subjection  or 
superiority.  Some  have  attempted  to  evade  this  difficulty  by  attaching  to 
nss  the  sense  of  serving  by  benevolence  (Gal.  5 :  13)  or  of  simply  treating 
with  respect  or  reverence.  But  even  if  this  explanation  of  the  word  were 
justified  by  usage,  why  should  this  deference  be  confined  to  one  party 
instead  of  being  mutual,  especially  when  what  precedes  and  follows  so  em- 
phatically expresses  the  idea  of  reciprocity  ?  In  favour  of  the  other  con- 
struction is  the  constant  use  of  las  to  denote  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and  the 
omission  of  the  divine  name  after  it,  not  only  in  Job  36:  11,  but  in  v.  21 
of  this  very  chapter.  For  although  the  latter  place  admits,  as  we  have 
seen,  of  two  interpretations,  the  very  fact  that  the  elliptical  construction  is 
appropriate  in  both,  and  that  no  other  sense  but  that  of  serving  God  is 
equally  appropriate  to  both,  would  seem  to  be  decisive  in  favour  of  this 
sense  and  this  construction  as  the  true  one.  Some  understand  the  clause  to 
mean  that  the  Egyptians  should  serve  with  the  Assyrians  in  the  same  army 
under  the  same  leader,  viz.  Alexander  the  Great  or  his  successors.  But 
na$  is  nowhere  absolutely  used,  if  at  all,  in  this  modern  military  sense,  which 
is  moreover  wholly  inadmissible  in  v.  21.  The  sense  of  serving  God  to- 
gether is  adopted  by  Luther  and  all  the  later  German  writers  except  Hitzig, 
who  agrees  with  Cocceius  and  the  ancient  versions.  Some  remove  the 
ambiguity  by  supplying  the  ellipsis,  others  by  giving  a  specific  meaning  to 
the  verb,  as  Lowth  (worship)  and  Ewald  (huldigen). 


^ 


366  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.' 

V.  24.  In  that  day  shall  Israel  be  a  third  with  respect  to  Egypt  and 
Assyria,  a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  the  earth.  The  meaning  obviously  is 
that  Israel  should  be  one  of  three  or  a  party  to  a  triple  union,  ri^biu  there- 
fore does  not  agree  with  ^snb?  considered  as  a  feminine  noun,  because  in- 
tended to  denote  not  the  country  but  the  nation.  This  explanation,  the  one 
suggested  by  Gesenius,  is  directly  contrary  to  usage,  which  makes  countries 
feminine  and  nations  masculine,  as  stated  by  Gesenius  himself  in  his  com- 
ment on  the  next  verse.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  a  reference  to  rns> 
or  any  other  noun  understood.  "  As  the  fractional  numerals  are  all  abstract 
nouns,  the  feminine  form  of  the  ordinals  is  employed  exclusively  for  their 
representation."  (Nordheimer  <§>  627.  Compare  Gesenius  <§>  96.)  The 
word  therefore  means  a  third  part  or  one  equal  part  out  of  three.  The  idea 
meant  to  be  conveyed,  however,  is  not,  as  Cocceius  supposes,  merely  that 
of  equality  in  magnitude  or  power,  but  also  that  of  intimate  conjunction,  as 
in  the  preceding  verse.  Blessing  is  here  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense,  as 
denoting  at  the  same  time  a  source  of  blessing,  a  means  of  blessing,  and  an 
object  to  be  blessed.  Luther  supplies  a  preposition  before  it  and  a  relative 
after  it  (through  the  blessing  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  earth).  Knobel 
simply  supplies  the  verb  of  existence  (blessing  shall  be  in  the  midst  etc.). 
The  simplest  construction  is  to  put  it  in  apposition  with  bx-mr  or  rnVvto, 
a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  the  earth,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  as  a 
blessing  or  (as  Ewald  has  it)  for  a  blessing  in  the  midst  of  \he  earth.  The 
restricted  sense  of  land,  whether  understood  to  mean  the  land  of  Israel  or 
the  land  of  the  three  united  powers  now  reckoned  as  one,  is  not  only  arbi- 
trary, i.  e.  assumed  without  necessity,  but  greatly  impairs  the  strength  of  the 
expressions. 

V.  25.    Which  Jehovah  of  Hosts  has  blessed  (or  with  which  Jehovah  of 
Hosts  has  blessed  it)  saying,  Blessed  be  my  people  Egypt,  and  the  work  of 
my  hands  Assyria,  and  my  heritage  (or  peculiar  people)  Israel.    The  perfect 
union  of  the  three  great  powers  in  the  service  of  God  and  the  enjoyment  of 
his  favour  is  now  expressed  by  a  solemn  benediction  on  the  three,  in  which 
language  commonly  applied  to  Israel  exclusively  is  extended  to  Egypt  and 
Assyria.     The  force  of  the  expressions  would  be  much  enhanced  by  the 
habitual  associations  of  a  Jewish  reader.     It  arises  very  much  from  the 
surprise  excited  by  the  unexpected  termination  of  the  clauses.     Instead  of 
Blessed  be  my  people  Israel,  the  formula  is  blessed  be  my  people  Egypt. 
That  the  work  of  my  hands  does  not  merely  mean  my  creature,  or  a  creature 
perfectly  at  my  disposal,  but  my  creature  in  a  special  and  a  spiritual  sense, 
the  same  in  which  God  is  said  to  be  the  maker  or  founder  of  Israel  (Deut. 
32 :  6.  Isai.  43 :  6,1),  is  evident  from  this  consideration,  that  the  clause 
would  otherwise  say  nothing  peculiar  or  distinctive  of  Assyria,  as  those 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XIX.  367 

before  and  after  it  do  of  Egypt  and  Israel.  Some  writers  understand  the 
last  clause  as  still  making  I  distinction  in  favour  of  Israel,  as  if  he  had  said, 
Egypt  is  indeed  my  people  and  A->\ri;i  my  handiwork,  but  Israel  after  all 
and  alone  is  my  inheritance.  The  objections  to  this  interpretation  are,  first, 
that  it  is  wholly  arbitrary,  that  is,  it  assumes  a  peculiar  emphasis  in  the 
word  inheritance  which  neither  usage  nor  the  context  warrants  ;  and  second- 
ly, that  it  contradicts  or  makes  unmeaning  the  varied  and  reiterated  forms 
of  speech  by  which  the  Prophet  had  before  expressed  the  ideas  of  equality 
and  union.  Where  his  very  object  seems  to  be  to  represent  the  three  united 
powers  as  absolutely  one  in  privilege,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  he  would 
wind  up  by  saying  that  they  are  not  absolutely  equal  after  all.  Much  less 
is  such  a  meaning  to  be  put  upon  his  words  when  there  is  nothing  in  the 
words  themselves  to  require  or  even  authorize  it.  The  correct  view  of  the 
verse  seems  to  be  this.  In  order  to  express  once  more  and  in  the  most 
emphatic  manner  the  admission  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  to  the  privileges  of 
the  chosen  people,  he  selects  three  titles  commonly  bestowed  upon  the  latter 
exclusively,  to  wit,  God^s  people,  the  work  of  his  hands,  and  his  inheritance, 
and  these  three  he  distributes  to  the  three  united  powers  without  discrimina- 
tion or  invidious  distinction.  If  this  view  of  the  matter  be  correct,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  whole  will  be  distorted  by  attaching  any  undue  emphasis  to  the 
concluding  words.  As  to  the  application  of  the  prophecy  there  are  three 
distinct  opinions.  One  is  that  the  Prophet  here  anticipates  a  state  of  peace 
and  international  communion  between  Egypt,  Israel,  and  Assyria  in  his  own 
times,  which  may  or  may  not  have  been  actually  realized.  Another  is  that 
he  predicts  what  actually  did  take  place  under  the  reign  of  Alexander  and 
the  two  great  powers  that  succeeded  him,  viz.  the  Graeco-Syrian  and  Egyp- 
tian monarchies,  by  which  the  true  religion  was  protected  and  diffused  and 
the  way  prepared  for  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  A  third  is  that  Egypt 
and  Assyria  are  here  named  as  the  two  great  heathen  powers  known  to  the 
Jews,  whose  country  lay  between  them  and  was  often  the  scene  if  not  the  sub- 
ject of  their  contests,  so  that  for  ages  they  were  commonly  in  league  with  the 
one  against  the  other.  To  describe  these  two  great  belligerent  powers  as  at 
peace  with  Israel  and  one  another,  was  not  only  to  foretell  a  most  surprising 
revolution  in  the  state  of  the  world,  but  to  intimate  at  least  a  future  change 
in  the  relation  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  When  he  goes  still  further  and 
describes  these  representatives  of  heathenism  as  received  into  the  covenant 
and  sharing  with  the  church  of  God  its  most  distinctive  titles,  we  have  one 
of  the  clearest  and  most  striking  predictions  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles 
that  the  word  of  God  contains.  One  advantage  of  this  exposition  is  that 
while  it  thus  extends  and  elevates  the  scope  of  the  prediction,  it  retains 
unaltered  whatever  there  may  be  of  more  specific  prophecy  or  of  coinci- 
dence with  history.     If  Alexander  is  referred  to,  and  the  spread  of  Judaism 


368  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX. 

under  him  and  his  successors,  and  the  general  pacification  of  the  world  and 
progress  of  refinement,  these  are  so  many  masterly  strokes  added  to  the  great 
prophetic  picture ;  but  they  cannot  be  extracted  from  it  and  made  to  consti- 
tute a  picture  by  themselves.  As  to  the  construction  of  the  first  clause,  it 
may  be  observed  that  most  writers  refer  the  relative  pronoun  to  fiNft,  or 
give  *rc&j  the  sense  of  for,  because,  but  Ewald  and  Knobel  make  fwa  the 
antecedent — the  blessing  wherewith  God  has  blessed  it — as  in  Deut.  12:7. 
15:  14.  In  either  case,  the  suffix  tens  refers  not  to  YWl  as  a  masculine 
because  denoting  people,  but  to  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Israel,  considered  as  a 
single  nation.  The  preterite  form  of  the  verb  has  reference  to  the  benedic- 
tion as  preceding  and  occasioning  the  union  just  before  described.  When 
Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Israel  are  thus  united,  it  will  be  because  God  has 
already  blessed  them,  saying,  etc.  There  is  therefore  no  necessity  or  ground 
for  an  arbitrary  change  of  the  preterite  into  a  future,  nor  even  for  evading 
an  exact  translation  by  the  substitution  of  the  present  form.  How  far  the 
early  Jews  were  below  the  genuine  spirit  of  the  Prophecies  may  be  gathered 
from  the  fact  that  both  the  Septuagint  and  Targum  make  this  a  promise  to 
Israel  exclusively,  Assyria  and  Egypt  being  mentioned  merely  as  the  places 
where  they  had  experienced  affliction. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

About  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  attack  on  Ashdod,  the  Prophet  is  directed 
to  walk  naked  and  barefoot  as  a  sign  of  the  defeat  and  captivity  of  the  Egyp- 
tians and  Ethiopians  who  were  at  war  with  Assyria.  The  first  verse  fixes  the 
date  of  this  symbolical  transaction  ;  the  second  contains  the  divine  command 
and  the  record  of  its  execution  ;  the  third  and  fourth  explain  the  meaning 
of  the  symbol ;  the  fifth  and  sixth  predict  its  effect,  or  rather  that  of  the 
event  which  it  prefigured.  The  questions  which  have  been  raised,  as  to 
the  date  of  the  composition  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy,  will  be  most 
conveniently  considered  in  the  course  of  the  detailed  interpretation.  It  may 
be  added  here,  however,  that  Cocceius,  with  all  other  interpreters,  applies 
this  chapter  to  the  literal  Egypt,  but  instead  of  admitting  any  inconsistency 
between  this  hypothesis  and  that  which  supposes  ch.  19  to  relate  to  the 
mystical  Egypt,  he  ingeniously  converts  the  juxtaposition  into  an  argument 
for  his  opinion,  by  alleging  that  the  chapter  now  before  us  was  added  for 
the  very  purpose  of  showing  that  the  foregoing  promises  and  threatenings 
did  not  belong  to  the  literal  Egypt. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX.  369 

V.  1.  In  the  year  of  Tartan's  coming  to  Ashdod,  in  Sargon  king  of 
Assyria's  sending  him  (i.  e.  when  Sargon  king  of  Assyria  sent  him),  and  he 
fought  with  Ashdod  (i.  e.  besieged  it)  and  took  it,  Ashdod  was  one  of  the 
five  cities  of  the  Philistines  (Josh.  11 :  22.  15:  46.  1  Sam.  5:  1),  consid- 
ered on  account  of  its  strong  fortifications  (from  which  its  name  is  supposed 
to  be  derived)  the  key  of  Egypt,  and  therefore  frequently  attacked  in  the 
wars  between  Egypt  and  Assyria.  According  to  Herodotus,  Psammetichus 
besieged  it  twenty-nine  years.  This,  if  not  an  exaggeration,  is  the  longest 
siege  in  history,  and  probably  took  place  after  what  is  here  recorded,  to 
recover  Ashdod  from  Assyria.  Its  site  is  marked  by  a  village  still  called 
Esdud  (Robinson's  Palestine  II.  368).  The  name  of  Sargon  nowhere  else 
occurs.  Tartan  appears  again  as  a  general  under  Sennacherib  (2  Kings 
18 :  17).  From  this  Usher,  Grotius,  Lowth,  and  Doederlein  infer  that  Sargon 
and  Sennacherib  are  one  and  the  same  person.  According  to  Jerome,  this 
king  had  seven  names  ;  according  to  Kimchi  and  the  Talmud,  eight.  This 
looks  very  much  like  a  Jewish  figment  designed  to  render  the  alleged  iden- 
tity more  probable.  Marsham  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  identify  Sargon  with 
Esarhaddon ;  Sanctius,  Vitringa,  and  Eichhorn,  with  Shalmaneser.  All 
these  suppositions  are  less  probable  than  the  obvious  one,  that  Sargon  was  a 
king  of  Assyria  mentioned  only  here,  because  his  reign  was  very  short,  and 
this  was  the  only  occurrence  that  brought  him  into  contact  with  the  Jews. 
That  he  was  not  the  immediate  successor  of  Sennacherib,  is  clear  from  ch. 
37  :  38,  and  from  the  fact  which  seems  to  be  implied  in  2  Chr.  32 :  21,  that 
Tartan  perished  in  the  great  catastrophe.  The  most  plausible  hypothesis,  and 
that  now  commonly  adopted,  is,  that  he  reigned  three  or  four  years  between 
Shalmaneser  and  Sennacherib  (according  to  Knobel's  computation,  from 
718  to  715  B.  C).  It  is  said  indeed  in  one  of  the  Apocryphal  books  (Tob. 
1:15)  that  Sennacherib  was  the  son  of  Enemessar  (i.  e.  Shalmaneser)  ;  but 
even  allowing  more  weight  to  this  authority  than  it  deserves,  Sargon  may 
have  been  an  elder  brother.  In  the  Vatican  text  of  the  Septuagint  this 
name  is  written  *Aqvay  in  the  Complutensian  Naova,  by  Aquila  and  Theo- 
dotion  Haoayav.  The  immediate  succession  of  these  two  kings  readily 
accounts  for  Tartan's  being  named  as  an  officer  of  both,  as  Vitringa  observes 
that  Abner  served  under  Saul  and  Ishbosheth,  and  Benaiah  under  David 
and  Solomon.  So  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  in  our  day,  has  served  under 
four  successive  sovereigns.  Nothing,  therefore,  can  be  proved  in  this  way 
as  to  the  identity  of  Sargon  and  Sennacherib.  Hendewerk  even  questions 
the  propriety  of  inferring  that  they  reigned  in  immediate  succession,  on  the 
ground  that  Tartar  like  Rabshakeh  and  Rabsaris  (2  Kings  18:  17),  was 
not  a  proper  name  but  an  official  title.  Hendewerk  himself,  however, 
acquiesces  in  the  common  chronological  hypothesis,  although  he  questions 

this  mode  of  proving  it.     The  name  Tartan  is  written  in  the  Alexandrian 

24 


370  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX. 


text  of  the  Septuagint  Nd&av,  in  the  Vatican  Tavd&av.     Here,  as  in  ch. 
6 :  1,  it  is  disputed  whether  in  the  year  of  Tartan's  coming  means  before  or 
after  that  occurrence.     The  truth  is,  it  means  neither,  but  leaves  that  ques- 
tion undetermined,  or  at  most  to  be  determined  by  the  context.     Those 
who  refer  the  last  two  verses  of  the  chapter  to  the  Philistines,  and  suppose 
the  prophecy  to  have  been  intended  to  forewarn  them  of  the  issue  of  the 
siege  of  Ashdod  and  of  the  folly  of  relying  on  Egyptian  or  Ethiopian  aid 
against  Assyria,  must  of  course  assume  that  this  symbolical  transaction  took 
place  before  the   arrival  of  Tartan,  or  at  least  before  the  end  of  the  siege. 
Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  suppose  it  to  refer  to  the  Jews  themselves, 
find  it  more  natural  to  assume  that  the  prophecy  was  uttered  after  the  fall 
of  Ashdod.     In  this  case,  the  recording  of  the  prophecy  may  have  been 
contemporaneous  with  its  publication.     In  the  other  case,  we  must  suppose 
it  to  have  been  reduced  to  writing  after  the  event.    Here,  as  in  ch.  7 :  1-16, 
Gesenius  infers  from  the  use  of  the  third  person,  that  the  chapter  was  not 
written  by  Isaiah  himself,  but  by  a  scribe  or  amanuensis.     Here  too,  as  in 
ch.  7:1,  Ewald  regards  the  last  clause  as  a  parenthetical  anticipation,  and 
the  next  verse  as  continuing  the  narrative  directly.     As  if  he  had  said  :   f  in 
the  year  that  Tartan  came  to  Ashdod  (which  he  besieged  and  finally  took), 
at  that  time  etc'     But  this  supposition  is  at  least  unnecessary.     On  the 
change  of  construction  from  the  infinitive  to  the  future,  and  the  collocation 
of  the  subject  and  the  object  in  the  first  clause,  vide  supra,  ch.  5 :  24. 

V.  2.  At  that  time  spake  Jehovah  by  the  hand  of  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz,  saying,  Go,  and  thou  shalt  open  (i.  e.  loose)  the  sackcloth  from 
upon  thy  loins,  and  thy  shoe  thou  shalt  pull  off  from  upon  thy  foot.  And 
he  did  so,  going  naked  and  barefoot.  Maimonides,  Kimchi,  Staudlin,  and 
Hendewerk,  suppose  this  to  have  been  done  merely  in  vision.  This  suppo- 
sition is  not  only  altogether  arbitrary,  i.  e.  without  any  intimation  in  the 
text,  but  is  rendered  more  improbable  by  the  expression  and  he  did  so,  as 
well  as  by  the  statement  in  the  next  verse  that  the  act  required  was  to  be  a 
sign  or  symbol  to  the  spectators,  which  certainly  implies  that  it  was  really 
exhibited.  This  supposition  of  an  ideal  exposure  seems  to  have  been 
resorted  to,  in  order  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  Prophet  really  appeared 
before  the  people  in  a  state  of  nudity.  It  is  commonly  agreed,  however, 
that  this  was  not  the  case.  The  word  naked  is  used  to  express  partial 
denudation  in  all  languages.  The  examples  quoted  by  Vitringa  from 
Seneca,  Suetonius,  and  Aurelius  Victor,  have  been  copied  or  referred  to  by 
•most  later  writers.  As  biblical  examples,  may  be  cited  1  Sam.  19:  24. 
2  Sam.  6 :  20.  Amos  2:  16.  John  21 :  7.  In  the  case  before  us,  we  may 
either  suppose  that  the  pto  was  an  upper  garment  which  he  threw  en- 
tirely off,  or  an  inner  garment  which  he  opened  by  ungirding  it,  or  a 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX.  371 

girdle  itself  which  he  loosened  and  perhaps  removed.  Sackcloth  was  a 
common  mourning  dress,  and  some  suppose  that  Isaiah  was  now  wearing  it 
in  token  of  his  grief  for  the  exile  of  the  ten  tribes  (Kimchi,  Lightfoot). 
Others  understand  it  as  an  official  or  ascetic  dress  worn  by  the  prophets 
(Zech.  13:  4),  as  for  instance  by  Elijah  (2  Kings  1 :  8)  and  by  John  the 
Baptist  (Matt.  3:  4).  Others  again  suppose  that  it  is  mentioned  as  a  cheap 
coarse  dress  worn  by  the  Prophet  in  common  with  the  humbler  class  of 
people.  The  name  p:r  appears  to  have  reference  merely  to  the  coarseness 
of  the  texture  ;  but  the  cloth  would  seem  to  have  been  usually  made  of  hair, 
and,  in  later  times  at  least,  of  a  black  colour  (Rev.  6  :  12).  The  expression 
by  the  hand  denotes  ministerial  agency  or  intervention,  and  is  often  used  in 
reference  to  communications  made  to  the  people  through  the  prophets. 
(Ex.4:  13.  1  Sam.  16:  20.  Jer.  37:  2.)  So  in  this  case,  the  divine 
communication  was  really  addressed  to  the  people,  though  the  words  imme- 
diately ensuing  are  addressed  to  the  Prophet  himself.  There  is  no  ground, 
therefore,  for  suspecting,  with  Hendewerk,  that  the  words  1*2  etc.  were 
interpolated  afterwards  as  an  explanatory  gloss,  or  for  assuming,  with  Gese- 
nius,  that  *ns  is  here  used  like  a  corresponding  phrase  in  Arabic  to  mean 
before  or  in  the  presence  of,  as  some  suppose  it  does  in  1  Sam.  21:  14 
and  Job  15:  27.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  phrase  has 
exclusive  reference  to  the  symbolical  action.  Gill ;  "  he  spoke  by  him  by 
the  sign  he  used  according  to  his  order,  and  he  spoke  to  him  to  use  the  sign." 
The  simplest  and  most  natural  solution  is,  that  what  was  said  to  the  Prophet 
was  obviously  said  through  him  to  the  people.  Above  thirty  manuscripts 
and  several  editions  read  ybn  in  the  plural,  but  of  course  without  a  change 
of  meaning. 

V.  3.  And  Jehovah  said,  As  my  servant  Isaiah  hath  gone  naked  and 
barefoot  three  years  a  sign  and  symbol  concerning  Egypt  and  concerning 
Ethiopia.  Here  begins  the  divine  explanation  of  the  symbolical  act  before 
commanded.  Although  the  design  of  this  transaction  was  to  draw  attention 
by  exciting  surprise,  reia  does  not  merely  mean  a  wonder,  but  a  portent  or 
extraordinary  premonition,  b?  might  here  be  taken  in  the  more  specific 
sense  of  against,  but  the  more  general  meaning  is  sufficient  and  agrees  well 
with  the  context.  Cush  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  a  part  of 
Arabia  on  the  coast  of  the  Red  Sea  (Bochart),  or  this  part  of  Arabia  with 
the  opposite  part  of  Africa  (Vitringa)  ;  but  the  latest  authorities  confirm  the 
ancient  explanation  of  the  word  as  meaning  Ethiopia.  In  the  prophecies 
belonging  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  are  frequently  com- 
bined, either  because  they  were  in  close  alliance,  or  because  an  Ethiopian 
dynasty  then  reigned  in  Upper  Egypt.  It  has  been  a  question  with  inter- 
preters whether  the  words  three  years  are  to  be  connected  with  what  follows 


372  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX. 

or  what  goes  before.     The  Septuagint  gives  both  solutions  by  repeating  tqik 
ttrj.     The  masoretic  interpunction  throws  the  words  into  the  second  clause? 
three  years  a  sign  etc.    This  construction  is  adopted  by  some  modern  writers 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  conclusion  that  Isaiah  walked  naked  and  bare- 
foot for  the  space  of  three  years,  which  is  certainly  the  obvious  and  prima 
facie  meaning  of  the  words.     Those  who  adhere  to  the  masoretic  accents, 
understand  the  second  clause  to  mean  a  three  years'  sign  and  wonder,  i.  e, 
either  a  sign  of  something  to  occur  in  three  years  or  to  continue  three  years, 
or  a  sign  for  three  years  of  a  subsequent  event.     Those  who  connect  three 
years  with  what  precedes  either  understand  the  language  strictly  as  denoting 
that  the  Prophet  continued  to  go  naked  and  barefoot  for  that  space  of  time, 
or   palliate  the  harshness  of  this  supposition   by  assuming  that  he  only 
appeared  thus  when  he  went  abroad,  or  at  certain  set  times,  or  occasionally. 
The  most  improbable  hypothesis  of  all  is  that  of  a  transposition  in  the  text, 
WW  D^ia  t&V  for  epsd  cfctJ  aix  (Gesenius),  unless  the  preference  be  due  to 
that  of  Lowth,  that  the  original  reading  was  three  days,  or  to  that  of  Vitringa, 
that  three  days  was  meant  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader.    On  the  whole,  the 
simplest  and  most  satisfactory  solution  is  that  proposed  by  Hitzig,  who  sup- 
poses the  Prophet  to  have  exposed  himself  but  once  in  the  way  described, 
after  which  he  continued  to  be  a  sign   and  wonder  for  three  years,  i.  e.  till 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.     This  explanation  avoids  the  difficulty  as  to 
the  three  years'  exposure,  and  at  the  same  time  adheres  to  the  masoretic 
interpunction.     The  three  years  have  been  variously  understood,  as  the 
duration  of  the  siege  of  Ashdod,  as  the  duration  of  the  exile  threatened  in 
the  next  verse,  and  as  the  interval  which  should  elapse  between  the  prophecy 
and  its  fulfilment.     Of  these  three  hypotheses  the  second  is  the  least  proba- 
ble, while  the  first  and  third  may  be  combined. 

V.  4.  So  shall  the  king  of  Assyria  lead  the  captivity  (i.  e.  the  captives) 
of  Egypt  and  the  exiles  of  Ethiopia,  young  and  old,  naked  and  barefoot 7 
with  their  buttocks  uncovered,  the  nakedness  (or  disgrace)  of  Egypt.  This 
verse  completes  the  comparison  begun  in  that  before  it.  arna  is  commonly 
applied  to  flocks  and  herds,  and  like  the  Latin  ago,  corresponds  both  to  lead 
and  drive  in  English.  Our  language  does  not  furnish  two  equivalents  to 
^nb  and  Mba  as  abstract  nouns,  exile  being  never  used  as  a  collective  for 
exiles.  The  sense  of  the  original  is  expressed,  with  a  change  of  form,  in 
the  English  Version  (the  Egyptians  prisoners  and  the  Ethiopians  captives), 
and  by  Luther  (das  gefangene  Egypten  und  vertriebene  Mohrenland).  The 
phrase  &n?|5n  D*nS3  is  not  meant  to  exclude  men  in  the  prime  of  life  because 
already  slain  in  battle  (Musculus),  but  comprehends  all  ages.  It  is  clear 
from  this  verse  that  Isaiah's  exposure  did  not  prefigure  the  spoliation  of  the 
Egyptians  (Barnes),  but  their  personal  captivity.     It  is  also  clear  from  a 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX.  373 

comparison  of  the  type  and  antitype,  that  the  nakedness  of  v.  2  was  a  par- 
tial one,  since  captives  were  not  commonly  reduced  to  a  state  of  absolute 
nudity.     This  is  confirmed  by  the  addition  of  the  word  barefoot  in  both 
cases,  which  would  be  superfluous  if  naked  had  its  strictest  sense.     The 
last  clause  is  separately  construed  by  Ewald :  they  who  are  thus  uncovered 
are  the  shame  of  Egypt.     Other  interpreters  continue  the  construction  from 
the  previous  clause,     rnr  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  strict  sense,  as  in  appo- 
sition with  the  phrase  before  it,  but  in  its  secondary  sense  of  shame  or  igno- 
miny, with  or  without  a  preposition  understood.     The  omission  of  Ethiopia 
in  this  last  clause  is  no  ground  for  supposing  it  to  be  interpolated  in  the  other 
(Hitzig),  nor  is  there  an  allusion  to  the  greater  sensitiveness  of  the  Egyp- 
tians (Vitringa).     The  omission   is,   so  to  speak,  an  accidental  one,  i.  e. 
without  design  or  meaning.     Even  Hendewerk  exclaims  against  the  tasteless 
and  unmeaning  maxim,  that  a  writer  who  repeats  his  own  expressions  must 
do  it  with  servile  exactness,  or  be  suspected  of  some  deep  design  in  the 
omission.     Connected  as  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  were  in  fact  and  in  the  fore- 
going context,  either  name  includes  the  other.     The  Icing  of  Assyria  here 
meant  is  neither  Nebuchadnezzar  (Cocceius),  nor  Esarhaddon,  nor  Shalma- 
neser ;  but  either  Sennacherib  or  Sargon  himself.     The  modern  German 
writers  suppose  this  prediction  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  the  conquest  of  No- 
Ammon   (i.  e.  Diospolis  or  Thebes)   mentioned  in  Nah.  3 :  8  as  a  recent 
event.     How  long  beforehand  the  prediction  was  uttered,  is  a  question  of 
small  moment  and   one  which  cannot  be  decided.     There  is  no  ground, 
however,  for  the  supposition  that  the  interval  was  so  short  as  to  convert  the 
prophecy  into  a  mere  conjecture  or  an  act  of  sagacious  forecast.     Equally 
vain  are  the  attempts  to  determine  whether  the  king  of  Assyria  remained  at 
home  during  the  siege  of  Ashdod,  or  was  then  engaged  in  his  attack  upon 
Egypt.     The  chronological  hypotheses  of  Usher,  Marsham,  and  Vitringa, 
all  assume  that  Sargon  was  identical  either  with  Shalmaneser,  Esarhaddon, 
or  Sennacherib,     wim  is  explained  by  Jarchi  as  a  singular  with  a  supernu- 
merary syllable,  by  Kimchi  and  Gesenius  as  an  old  form  of  the  plural  abso- 
lute, by  Ewald  as  an  old  form  of  the  plural  construct.     On  the  construction 
with  the  following  noun,  vide  supra,  ch.  1:4.  3 :  16. 

V.  5.  And  they  shall  be  afraid  and  ashamed  of  Ethiopia  their  expecta- 
tion and  of  Egypt  their  boast.  This  is  the  effect  to  be  produced  by  the 
catastrophe  just  threatened.  Both  the  Hebrew  verbs  take  ft  after  them,  as 
afraid  and  ashamed  take  of  in  English  ;  but  the  full  sense  of  Wl  is  that 
they  shall  be  confounded,  filled  with  consternation,  at  the  fate  of  those  in 
whom  they  trusted  for  deliverance.  »lq  is  that  to  which  they  look  for  help. 
It  is  used  in  the  same  sense  Zech.  9 :  5.  According  to  Hitzig,  1:2^2  properly 
belongs  to  ff^JR,  but  was  taken  from  it  to  be  joined  with  the  interpolated 


374  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX. 

sfos,  its  place  being  supplied  by  the  inappropriate  word  rnKtfc.  Knobel, 
on  the  contrary,  sees  a  peculiar  beauty  in  the  distinction  between  Ethiopia, 
to  which  they  merely  looked  for  help,^  and  Egypt,  from  which  they  had 
formerly  received  it,  and  in  which  they  therefore  gloried.  The  verbs  in  this 
verse  are  indefinite.  Some  refer  them  to  the  Philistines,  others  to  the  Jews, 
and  a  third  class  to  an  Egyptian  faction  in  Jerusalem.  These  are  mere 
conjectures,  nor  can  any  thing  more  be  ascertained  from  the  intentionally 
vague  terms  of  the  text.  That  the  words  refer  to  the  Philistines,  is  inferred 
from  the  mention  of  the  siege  of  Ashdod  in  the  first  verse.  But  this  is  by 
no  means  a  necessary  inference,  since  Ashdod  was  attacked  and  taken,  not 
as  a  town  of  the  Philistines,  but  as  a  frontier  post  of  great  importance  to 
both  parties  in  the  war.  So  far  then  as  the  Jews  were  interested  in  the  war 
at  all,  they  were  interested  in  the  fate  of  Ashdod,  and  the  mention  of  this 
siege  as  one  of  the  principal  events  of  the  campaign  is  altogether  natural. 
In  favour  of  the  reference  to  Judah  may  be  also  urged  the  want  of  any  clear 
example  in  Isaiah  of  a  prophecy  exclusively  intended  for  the  warning  or 
instruction  of  a  foreign  power.  In  either  case,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is, 
that  they  who  had  relied  on  Egypt  and  its  ally  Ethiopia  for  aid  against 
Assyria,  whether  Jews  or  Philistines  or  both,  should  be  confounded  at 
beholding  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  themselves  subdued. 

V.  6.  And  the  inhabitant  of  this  isle  (or  coast)  shall  say  in  that  day, 
Behold,  thus  (or  such)  is  our  expectation,  whither  we  fled  for  help,  to  be 
delivered  from  the  presence  of  the  Icing  of  Assyria.  And  hoiv  shall  we 
(ourselves)  escape  ?  The  disappointment  described  in  the  foregoing  verse 
is  now  expressed  by  those  who  felt  it.  The  argument  is  one  a  fortiori.  If 
the  protectors  were  subdued,  what  must  become  of  the  protected  ?  The 
pronoun  in  the  last  clause  is  emphatic,  as  it  usually  is  when  not  essential  to 
the  sense.  The  Hebrew  ^  has  no  exact  equivalent  in  English.  Three 
distinct  shades  or  gradations  of  meaning  seem  to  be  clearly  marked  in  usage. 
The  first  is  that  of  land  as  opposed  to  water ;  the  second  that  of  coast  as- 
opposed  to  inland ;  the  third  that  of  island  as  opposed  to  mainland.  The 
last,  although  commonly  expressed  in  most  translations,  is  perhaps  the  least 
frequent  of  the  three.  The  word  here  denotes,  not  Lower  Egypt  or  the 
Delta  of  the  Nile  (Clericus),  but  the  southeastern  shore  of  the  Mediterra- 
nean, here  called  this  coast,  as  Hendewerk  observes,  in  order  to  distinguish 
it  from  that  coast,  viz.  Ethiopia  and  Egypt,  which  had  just  before  been 
mentioned.  As  to  the  extent  of  country  meant  to  be  included,  nothing  of 
course  can  be  determined  from  the  word  itself,  which  is  designedly  indefinite. 
Hitzig,  in  accordance  with  his  view  of  the  whole  prophecy,  restricts  the 
application  to  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  as  the  maritime  tract  in  the  south- 
west of  Palestine,  adjacent  to  Egypt.     Others  with  more  probability  regard 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI.  375 

it  as  denoting  Palestine  itself,  in  the  large  modern  sense,  but  with  particular 
reference  to  Judah. —  Thus  or  such  is  our  expectation  i.  e.  this  is  the  end 
of  it,  you  see  what  has  become  of  it,  you  see  the  fate  of  that  to  which  we 
looked  for  help  (''^~)  ;  how  then  can  we  ourselves  (i5H2k)  be  delivered 
or  escape?    See  a  similar  expression  2  Kings  10:  4. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 


As  three  of  the  verses  of  this  chapter  begin  with  the  word  R*ts»  (vs.  1, 
11,  13),  it  is  now  commonly  supposed  to  consist  of  three  distinct  prophe- 
cies. It  is  also  agreed  that  the  first  of  these  (vs.  1-10)  relates  to  the  con- 
quest of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  and  Persians;  the  second  (vs.  II,  12) 
either  to  Edom  or  the  Arabian  tribe  Dumah,  and  the  third  (vs.  13-17) 
to  another  Arabian  tribe  or  to  Arabia  in  general.  The  second  and  third 
of  these  divisions  are  admitted  by  the  recent  German  writers  to  be  genuine, 
that  is  to  say,  composed  by  Isaiah  himself,  while  the  first  is  with  almost 
equal  unanimity  declared  to  be  the  product  of  a  later  age.  This  critical 
judgment,  as  in  other  cases,  is  founded  partly  on  alleged  diversities  of  phrase- 
ology, but  chiefly  on  the  wonderful  coincidences  with  history  both  sacred 
and  profane,  which  could  not  be  ascribed  to  Isaiah  or  to  any  contemporary 
writer,  without  conceding  the  reality  of  prophetic  inspiration.  The  princi- 
ple involved  in  this  decision  is  consistently  carried  out  by  Paulus,  Eichhorn, 
and  Rosenmiiller,  who  regard  the  passage  as  an  ex  post  facto  prophecy,  while 
Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Evvald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  arbitrarily  reject 
this  supposition,  and  maintain  that  it  was  written  just  before  the  event,  when 
Isaiah,  as  a  politician  or  a  poet,  could  foresee  what  was  to  happen.  Upon 
this  we  may  observe,  first,  that  all  such  reasoning  proceeds,  not  upon  the 
want  of  satisfactory  evidence,  but  upon  the  impossibility  of  inspiration  or 
prophetic  foresight,  so  that  even  supposing  it  to  have  existed,  no  proof  could 
establish  it.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  the  reasoning  of  such  writers  to 
shake  the  faith  of  any  who  do  not  hold  their  fundamental  principle  of  unbe- 
lief. In  the  next  place,  this  hypothesis  entirely  fails  to  account  for  the  minute 
agreement  of  the  prophecy  with  history  in  circumstantials,  which  must  therefore 
be  explained  away  by  forced  constructions  and  interpretations.  Taking  the 
language  in  its  obvious  meaning  and  excluding  all  gratuitous  assumptions, 
we  shall  be  constrained  to  look  upon  this  passage  as  one  of  the  most  striking 
instances  of  strict  agreement  between  prophecy  and  history.  As  to  the  re- 
mainder of  the  chapter,  while  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  connexion  of  the 


376  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI. 

parts,  and  the  meaning  of  each  in  itself,  are  exceedingly  obscure,  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  their  entire  separation  as  distinct 
and  independent  prophecies.  The  extreme  brevity,  especially  of  the  second 
part  (vs.  11,  12),  makes  this  very  dubious,  and  the  doubt  is  strengthened  by 
the  recurrence  of  the  figure  of  a  watchman  in  v.  1 1.  The  conclusion  drawn 
from  the  use  of  the  word  N'tsa  rests  upon  the  dubious  assumption  that  it  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  formal  title  or  inscription.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that 
some  of  the  same  writers  who  reject  these  titles  as  no  part  of  the  text,  ap- 
peal to  their  authority  in  settling  the  division  and  arrangement  of  the  chap- 
ter. The  truth  is  that  this  formula,  in  many  cases,  seems  to  indicate  at 
most  the  subdivisions  of  an  unbroken  context.  In  the  case  before  us,  as  in 
ch.  14  :  28,  it  is  safer  to  assume  the  unity  of  the  composition  than  rashly  to 
dismember  it.  However  difficult  it  may  be,  therefore,  to  determine  the  con- 
nexion of  these  parts,  they  may  safely  be  regarded  as  composing  one  ob- 
scure but  continuous  prediction.  This  is  the  less  improbable  because  they 
can  all  be  brought  into  connexion,  if  not  unity,  by  simply  supposing 
that  the  tribes  or  races,  to  which  vs.  1 1—17  relate,  were  sharers  with  the 
Jews  in  the  Babylonian  tyranny,  and  therefore  interested  in  its  downfall. 
This  hypothesis,  it  is  true,  is  not  susceptible  of  demonstration ;  but  it  is 
strongly  recommended  by  the  very  fact  that  it  explains  the  juxtaposition  of 
these  prophecies,  or  rather  entitles  them  to  be  considered  one. 

The  first  part  of  the  prophecy  opens  with  an  emphatic  intimation  of  its 
alarming  character,  vs.  1-4.     We  have  then  a  graphic  representation  of  the 
march  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  upon  Babylon,  vs.  5-9.     This  is  followed 
by  a  hint  of  the  effect  which  this  event  would   have  upon  the  people  of 
Jehovah,  v.  10. 

The  remainder  of  the  chapter  represents  the  neighbouring  nations  as  in- 
volved in  the  same  sufferings  with  the  Jews,  but  without  any  consolatory 
promise  of  deliverance,  vs.  11-17. 

V.  1 .  The  burden  of  the  desert  of  the  sea.  Like  whirlwinds  in  the  south, 
as  to  rushing  (or  driving) ,  from  the  wilderness  it  comes,  from  a  terrible  land. 
By  the  desert  of  the  sea,  Grotius  understands  the  country  of  the  Edomites, 
extending  to  the  Red  Sea  as  it  did  in  the  days  of  Solomon  (I  Kings  9  :  26). 
Other  interpreters  are  agreed  that  the  phrase  is  an  enigmatical  description 
of  Babylonia  as  a  great  plain  (Gen.  11:1.  Isai.  23  :  13),  watered  by  a 
great  river  which,  like  the  Nile  (ch.  19  :  5),  is  sometimes  called  a  sea  (ch. 
27  :  1).  This  designation  was  the  more  appropriate  because  the  plain  of 
Babylon,  according  to  Herodotus,  was  often  overflowed  before  Semiramis 
took  measures  to  prevent  it,  and  Abydenus  says  expressly  that  it  then  had 
the  appearance  of  a  sea.  The  threatened  danger  is  compared  to  the  ap- 
proach of  a  tempest  from  the  south,  i.  e.  from  the  great  Arabian  desert,  in 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI.  377 

which  quarter  the  most  violent  winds  are  elsewhere  represented  as  prevailing. 
^  hefore  epbn  denotes  relation  in  general,  and  indicates  the  point  of  the  com- 
parison. N3  is  indefinite  and  may  either  be  referred  to  the  enemy  or  made 
to  agree  with  something  or  the  like  understood.  As  watt  cannot  be  re- 
ferred to  the  countries  through  which  Cyrus  passed,  Knobel  disregards  the 
accents  and  connects  it  with  what  goes  before.  ■  Like  south-winds  sweep- 
ing from  the  wilderness,  one  comes  (or  they  come)  from  a  terrible  land.' 
This,  however,  is  unnecessary,  as  the  phrase  "Ugftfq  may  be  figurative  and 
refer  to  the  foregoing  comparison,  as  if  he  had  said,  they  come  as  storms 
come  from  the  desert. 

V.  2.  A  hard  vision — it  is  revealed  to  me — the  deceiver  deceiving  and 
the  spoiler  spoiling — go  up,  oh  Elam — besiege,  oh  Media — all  sighing  (or  all 
its  sighing)  I  have  made  to  cease.     The  first  phrase  of  course  means  a  vision 
of  severe  and  awful  judgments.     The  feminine  form  of  the  noun  is  connected 
with  a  masculine  verb,  as  Henderson  imagines,  to  intimate  the  dreadful  na- 
ture of  the  judgment  threatened.     It  is  hard  to  see  how  this  end  is  attained  by 
an  irregularity  of  syntax.     Others  regard  it  as  a  mere  enallage,  which  is  the 
less  probable,  however,  as  the  noun  precedes  the  verb.    Perhaps  the  simplest 
explanation  is  that  nan  is  indefinite   and  governs  the  preceding  words,  as  if 
he  had  said,  a  revelation  has  been  made  to  me  (consisting  of)  a  grievous 
vision.     The  older  writers  understand  the  next  clause  as  a  description  of 
the  Babylonian  tyranny,  and  give  tata  its  usual  meaning  of  a  treacherous 
dealer.     The  late  writers  apply  the  clause  to  the  conquerors  of  Babylon, 
and  make  Via  nearly  synonymous  with  ^tytt.     But  this  sense  of  the  word 
cannot  be  justified  by  usage.     Nor  is  it  necessary,  even  if  the  clause  be  ap- 
plied to  Cyrus,  since  one  of  the  terms  may  describe  the  stratagems  of  war  as 
the  other  does  its  violence.     This  is  the  more  natural,  as  Babylon  was  ac- 
tually taken  by  stratagem.     Go  up,  i.  e.  against  Babylon,  either  in  reference 
to  its  lofty  defences  (ch.  26 :  5),  or  according  to  a  more  general   military 
usage  of  the   phrase.    (Vide  supra,  ch.   7:   1.)       The  Medes  and  Per- 
sians were  united  under  Cyrus,  but  the  latter  are  here  named  first,  as 
Knobel  thinks,  because  they  were  now  in  the  ascendant.     The  final  letter  of 
nnn:i<  is  commonly  regarded  as  a  suffix,  though  without  mappik,  all  its  sigh- 
ing, sc.  Babylon's,  i.  e.  all  the  sighing  it  has  caused  by  its  oppression,  or 
all  the  sighing  of  it,  sc.  the  rv&a,  or  captivity.     Some  however  make  the  let- 
ter paragogic,  and  read  all  sighing,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  the 
limitation  which  is  expressed   in  one  case  being  understood  in  the  other. 
Elam,  a  province  of  the  Persian  empire,  is  here  put  for  the  whole.     Knobel 
sees  a  designed  paronomasia  in  the  similar  forms  tab***  1^5. 

V.  3.    Therefore  my  loins  are  filled  with  pain  ;  pangs  have  seized  me 
lilce  the  pangs  of  a  travailing  (woman)  ;  I  writhe  (or  am  convulsed)  from 


378  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI. 

hearing ;  I  am  shocked  (or  agitated)  from  seeing.  Some  regard  these  as 
the  words  of  a  captive  Jew,  or  of  a  Babylonian  ;  but  there  is  no  objection 
to  explaining  them  as  expressive  of  the  Prophet's  own  emotions,  a  very- 
common  method  of  enhancing  the  description  even  of  deserved  and  right- 
eous judgments.  The  reduplicated  form  tfotfom  is  intensive.  Lowth's 
translation  convulsed  is  perhaps  too  strong,  as  the  common  version  bowed 
down  is  too  weak.  The  older  writers  give  the  ya  a  causal  meaning,  from, 
i.  e.  by  or  on  account  of.  The  later  writers  make  it  privative,  away  from 
hearing,  i.  e.  so  as  not  to  hear.  Ewald  obtains  the  same  sense  by  making 
it  comparative,  too  much  confounded  to  hear,  too  much  frightened  to  see. 

V.  4.  My  heart  wanders  (reels,  or  is  bewildered)  ;  horror  appals  me  ; 
the  twilight  (night  or  evening)  of  my  pleasure  (or  desire)  he  has  put  for 
(or  converted  into)  fear  (or  trembling)  for  me.  Compare  the  combination 
22b  15*$]  Ps.  95  :  10.  There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  last  clause.  One 
supposes  it  to  mean  that  the  night  desired  as  a  time  of  rest  is  changed  into  a 
time  of  terror ;  the  other,  that  a  night  of  festivity  is  changed  into  a  night  of 
terror.  As  this  last  brings  the  prophecy  into  remarkable  coincidence  with 
history,  the  modern  Germans  commonly  prefer  the  former.  That  the  court 
was  revelling  when  Cyrus  took  the  city,  is  stated  in  the  general  by  Herodotus 
and  Xenophon,  and  in  full  detail  by  Daniel.  That  the  two  first,  however,  did 
not  derive  their  information  from  the  prophet,  may  be  inferred  from  their  not 
mentioning  the  writing  on  the  wall,  which  would  have  seemed  incredible  to 
neither  of  them. 

V.  5.  Set  the  table,  spread  the  cloth,  eat,  drink,  arise  ye  chiefs,  anoint 
the  shield  !  The  Hebrew  verbs  are  not  imperatives  but  infinitives,  here  used 
in  the  first  clause  for  the  historical  tense  in  order  to  give  brevity,  rapidity,  and 
life  to  the  description.  For  the  same  purpose  the  English  imperative  may  be 
employed,  as  the  simplest  form  of  the  verb  and  unencumbered  with  the  per- 
sonal pronouns.  The  sense,  however,  is,  that  while  the  table  is  set  etc.  the 
alarm  is  given.  Luzzatto  makes  the  whole  verse  antithetical :  they  set  the 
table,  they  had  better  set  a  watch  ;  they  eat  and  drink,  they  had  better  arise 
and  anoint  the  shield.  r^SSJl  nbit  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  watching  the 
watch,  i.  e.  setting  a  guard  to  prevent  surprise.  But  the  context  implies 
that  they  were  surprised.  Ewald  refers  it  to  the  watching  of  the  stars, 
which  agrees  well  with  the  Babylonian  usages,  but  like  the  first  explana- 
tion seems  misplaced  between  the  setting  of  the  table  and  the  sitting  at  it. 
Hitzig  and  Knobel  give  Stss  the  usual  sense  of  M52  to  overspread  or  cover, 
and  rv^Bs  (which  occurs  only  here)  that  of  the  thing  spread,  whether  it  be  the 
cloth  or  skin  which  serves  the  orientals  for  a  table,  or  the  carpet  upon  which 
they  sit  at  meals.     The  anointing  of  the  shield  is  supposed  by  some  to  be 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI.  379 

a  means  of  preserving  it  or  of  repelling  missiles  from  its  surface,  by  others 
simply  a  means  of  cleansing  and  perhaps  adorning  it.  Both  agree  that 
it  is  here  poetically  used  to  express  the  idea  of  arming  or  preparing  for  bat- 
tle. There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  last  clause.  One  makes  it  an 
address  by  Jehovah  or  the  Prophet  to  the  Medes  and  Persians,  as  in  the  last 
clause  of  v.  2 ;  the  other  a  sudden  alarm  to  the  Babylonians  at  their  feast. 
Both  explanations,  but  especially  the  last,  seem  to  present  a  further  allusion 
to  the  surprise  of  the  king  and  court  by  Cyrus.  This  coincidence  with  his- 
tory can  be  explained  away  only  by  giving  to  the  verse  a  vague  and  gene- 
ral meaning  which  is  wholly  at  variance  with  the  graphic  vividness  of  its 
expressions. 

V.  6.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  to  me :  Go  set  (or  cause  to  stand)  the 
watchman  (or  sentinel)  ;  that  which  he  sees  let  him  tell.  Instead  of  simply 
predicting  or  describing  the  approach  of  the  enemy,  the  Prophet  introduces 
an  ideal  watchman,  as  announcing  what  he  actually  sees.  According  to 
Knobel,  he  is  himself  the  watchman  (Hab.  1  :  8),  which  is  hardly  consist- 
ent with  the  language  of  this  verse.  The  last  clause  may  be  also  construed 
thus — who  may  see  (and)  tell ;  but  the  first  construction  seems  more  natural. 

V.  7.  And  should  he  see  cavalry — a  pair  (or  pairs  of  horsemen) — ass- 
riders — camel-riders — then  shall  he  hearken  with  hearkening  a  great  heark- 
ening (i.  e.  listen  attentively).  This  is  Ewald's  construction  of  the  sentence, 
which  supposes  the  divine  instructions  to  be  still  continued.  All  other 
writers  understand  the  Prophet  as  resuming  his  own  narrative:  and  he 
saw  (or  he  sees)  etc.  Against  this  construction,  and  in  favour  of  the  first, 
is  the  form  of  the  verbs,  which  are  all  in  the  preterite  with  vav  conversive, 
because  following  the  futures  of  the  foregoing  verse  (Nordheimer  §  219). 
Besides,  if  the  usual  construction  be  adopted,  v.  9  is  a  mere  repetition  of  v. 
7,  and  v.  8  is  obviously  misplaced  between  them.  But  on  the  other  sup- 
position, this  verse  contains  the  order  and  the  ninth  its  execution,  while  the 
eighth,  as  a  preface  to  the  latter,  is  exactly  in  its  proper  place,  nox  is  pro- 
perly a  yoke  of  oxen,  then  a.  pair  in  general.  It  is  here  collective  and 
means  pairs  of  horsemen,  i.  e.  horsemen  in  pairs  or  marching  two  and  two. 
The  sense  of  steeds  or  riding-horses  (as  opposed  to  c^D  chariot-horses) 
given  to  c^^fi  by  Gesenius,  is  extremely  rare  and  doubtful,  and  ought  not 
to  be  assumed  without  necessity.  M/n  in  a  very  great  majority  of  cases 
means  a  chariot.  But  as  this  would  seem  to  make  the  Prophet  speak 
of  chariots  drawn  by  asses  and  camels,  most  of  the  late  writers  either 
take  the  word  in  the  sense  of  rows  or  troops,  which  seems  entirely 
arbitrary,  or  in  that  of  mounted  troops  or  cavalry,  which  seems  to  be  easily 
deducible  from  -5^,  to  ride,  and  may  be  justified  by  the  analogy  of  1  Sam. 


380  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI. 

8:4.  10:  18,  where  the  word  must  mean  either  riders  or  the  beasts  on 
which  they  rode,  although  the  English  translators,  in  order  to  retain  the 
usual  sense  of  chariot,  supply  horses  in  one  place  and  men  in  the  other.  On 
the  first  of  these  hypotheses,  the  camels  and  asses  would  be  mentioned  only 
as  beasts  of  burden ;  but  we  know  from  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  that  the 
Persians  also  used  them  in  their  armies  for  riding,  partly  or  wholly  for  the 
purpose  of  frightening  the  horses  of  the  enemy.  It  is  a  slight  but  obvious 
coincidence  of  prophecy  and  history  that  Xenophon  represents  the  Persians 
advancing  Jwo  by  two  (slg  8vo). 

V,  8.  And  he  cries — a  lion — on  the  watch-tower.  Lord,  I  am  standing 
always  by  day,  and  on  my  ward  (or  place  of  observation)  lam  stationed  all 
the  nights  (i.  e.  all  night,  or  every  night,  or  both).  That  the  setting  of 
this  watch  is  an  ideal  process,  seems  to  be  intimated  by  the  word  *£vk  one 
of  the  divine  names  (not  *t<*  my  lord  or  sir),  and  also  by  the  unremitted 
vigilance  to  which  he  here  lays  claim.  From  the  first  of  these  particulars, 
Knobel  infers  that  the  Prophet  is  himself  the  watchman  stationed  by  Jehovah. 
But  see  v.  7,  and  the  comment  on  it.  Another  view  of  the  passage  may 
be  suggested  as  possibly  the  true  one,  viz.  that  the  Prophet,  on  receiving 
the  order  to  set  a  watch,  replies  that  he  is  himself  engaged  in  the  perform- 
ance of  that  duty.  According  to  the  usual  interpretation,  these  are  the  words 
of  the  delegated  watchman,  announcing  that  he  is  at  his  post  and  will  re- 
main there  and  announce  whatever  he  may  see.  There  are  two  explanations 
of  h?}&  lfcjf>*3.  The  first  makes  svnx  the  beginning  of  the  watchman's  speech 
— he  cries,  a  lion!  i.  e.  I  see  a  lion  coming,  meaning  the  invader.  The  ob- 
jection to  this  is  not,  as  Henderson  alleges,  that  the  usage  of  the  language 
does  not  authorize  such  an  application  of  the  figure  of  a  lion  ;  but  rather  that 
this  abrupt  and  general  announcement  of  the  enemy  would  hardly  have  been 
followed  by  aprefatory  declaration  of  the  watchman's  diligence.  This,  it 
is  clear,  must  come  before  not  after  the  announcement  of  the  enemy,  and 
accordingly  we  find  that  announcement  in  the  next  verse,  corresponding  ex- 
actly to  the  terms  of  the  instructions  in  the  seventh.  These  considerations 
seem  decisive  in  favour  of  the  other  hypothesis,  now  commonly  adopted,  viz. 
that  irna  forms  no  part  of  the  sentinel's  report,  but  is  rather  a  description  of 
the  way  in  which  he  makes  it.  The  true  sense  of  the  words  is  given  in  a 
paraphrase  in  Rev.  10 :  3,  he  cried  with  a  loud  voice  as  when  a  lion  roareth. 
As  to  the  syntax,  we  may  either  supply  3  before  n^x,  of  which  ellipsis  there 
are  some  examples,  or  still  more  simply  read  the  lion  cries,  thus  converting 
the  simile  into  a  metaphor.  The  first  construction  agrees  best  however  with 
the  masoretic  accents.  Luzzatto  explains  hj*}B  as  the  usual  cry  of  shepherds 
when  they  saw  wild  beasts  approaching. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI.  381 

V.  9.  And  behold,  this  comes  (or  this  is  what  is  coming),  mounted 
men,  pairs  of  horsemen.  And  he  answers  (i.  e.  speaks  again)  and  says, 
Fallen,  fallen,  is  Babylon,  and  all  the  images  of  her  gods  he  has  broken  (or 
crushed)  to  the  earth.  The  last  verb  is  indefinitely  construed,  but  obviously 
refers  to  the  enemy  as  the  instrument  of  Babylon's  destruction,  rather  than  to 
God  as  the  efficient  cause.  The  omission  of  the  asses  and  camels  in  this 
verse  is  explained  by  Knobel  on  the  ground  that  the  enemy  is  now  to  be 
conceived  as  having  reached  the  city,  his  beasts  of  burden  being  left  behind 
him.  But  the  true  explanation  seems  to  be  that  the  description  given  in  v. 
7  is  abbreviated  here,  because  so  much  was  to  be  added.  Still  the  corres- 
pondence is  sufficiently  exact,  &%  3J1  is  supposed  by  some  to  mean 
chariots  containing  men  ;  but  according  to  the  analogy  of  v.  7,  it  rather 
means  mounted  men.  As  the  phrases  camel-riders,  ass-riders,  there  used, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  can  only  mean  riders  upon  camels  and  asses,  so 
here  man-riders,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  can  only  mean  men  who  are 
riders  themselves.  The  structure  of  the  passage  is  highly  dramatic.  In  the 
sixth  verse,  the  prophet  is  commanded  to  set  a  watch.  In  the  seventh,  the 
sentinel  is  ordered  to  look  out  for  an  army  of  men,  mounted  on  horses,  camels, 
and  asses.  In  the  eighth,  he  reports  himself  as  being  at  his  post.  In  the 
ninth,  he  sees  the  very  army  which  had  been  described  approaching.  An- 
swer is  used,  both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  for  the  resumption  of  discourse  by 
the  same  speaker,  especially  after  an  interval.  It  is  here  equivalent  to  spoke 
again.  During  the  interval  implied,  the  city  is  supposed  to  have  been 
taken,  so  thatwhen  the  watchman  speaks  again,  it  is  to  say  that  Babylon  is 
fallen.  The  omission  of  all  the  intermediate  details,  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  the  extremes  together,  is  a  masterly  stroke  of  poetical  description, 
which  would  never  have  occurred  to  an  inferior  writer.  The  allusion  to 
idols  in  the  last  clause  is  not  intended  merely  to  remind  us  that  the  conquest 
was  a  triumpji  of  the  true  God  over  false  ones,  but  to  bring  into  view  the 
well  known  aversion  of  the  Persians  to  all  images.  Herodotus  says  they  not 
only  thought  it  unlawful  to  use  images,  but  imputed  folly  to  those  who  did 
it.  Here  is  another  incidental  but  remarkable  coincidence  of  prophecy  even 
with  profane  history. 

V.  10.  Oh  my  threshing  and  the  son  of  my  threshing-floor !  What  I 
have  heard  from  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel,  I  have  told  you.  This 
part  of  the  prophecy  closes  with  an  apostrophe,  showing  at  once  by  whose 
power  and  for  whose  sake  the  downfall  of  Babylon  was  to  be  brought  about. 
Threshing  here  means  that  which  is  threshed,  and  is  synonymous  with  the 
following  phrase,  son  of  the  threshing-floor,  i.  e.  (according  to  the  oriental 
idiom  which  uses  son  to  signify  almost  any  relation)  threshed  grain.  The 
comparison  of  severe  oppression  or  affliction  to  threshing  is  a  common  one, 


382  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI. 

and  though  the  terms  here  used  are  scarcely  intelligible  when  literally  rendered 
into  English,  it  is  clear  that  they  mean,  oh  my  oppressed  and  afflicted  people, 
and  must  therefore  be  addressed  not  to  the  Babylonians  but  the  Jews,  to  whom 
the  fall  of  Babylon  would  bring  deliverance,  and  for  whose  consolation  this 
prediction  was  originally  uttered.  The  last  clause  assures  them  that  their 
own  God  had  sent  this  message  to  them. 

V.  1 1 .  The  burden  of  Dumah.  To  me  (one  is)  calling  from  Seir, 
Watchman,  what  of  the  night?  Watchman,  what  of  the  night]  It  has  been 
already  stated  that  most  interpreters  regard  this  and  the  next  verse  as  an  in- 
dependent prophecy ;  but  that  the  use  of  the  word  xiyq  is  an  insufficient 
reason,  while  the  extreme  brevity  of  the  passage,  and  the  recurrence  of  the 
figure  of  a  sentinel  or  watchman,  seem  to  indicate  that  it  is  a  continuation  of 
what  goes  before,  although  a  new  subject  is  here  introduced.  Of  Dumah 
there  are  two  interpretations.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Hitzig, 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  understand  it  as  the  name  of  an  Arabian  tribe  descended 
from  Ishmael  (Gen.  25:  14.  1  Chr.  1  :  30),  or  of  a  place  belonging  to  that 
tribe,  perhaps  the  same  now  called  Dumah  Eljandil  on  the  confines  of  Arabia 
and  Syria.  In  that  case,  Seir,  which  lay  between  Judah  and  the  desert  of 
Arabia,  is  mentioned  merely  to  denote  the  quarter  whence  the  sound  pro- 
ceeded. But  as  Seir  was  itself  the  residence  of  the  Edomites  or  children  of 
Esau,  Vitringa,  Rosenmuller,  and  Knobel,  follow  the  Septuagint  and  Jar- 
chi  in  explaining  now  as  a  variation  of  the  name  fefaKj  intended  at  the  same 
time  to  suggest  the  idea  of  silence,  solitude,  and  desolation.  This  enigmati- 
cal name,  as  well  as  that  in  v.  1,  is  ascribed  by  Knobel  to  the  copyist  or 
compiler  who  added  the  inscriptions.  In  favour  of  the  first  interpretation  is 
the  mention  of  Arabia  and  of  certain  Arabian  tribes  in  the  following  verses. 
But  even  Edom  might  be  said  to  form  a  part  of  Arabia.  Jerome  also 
mentions  Dumah  as  a  district  in  the  south  of  Edom.  The  greater  import- 
ance of  Edom  and  the  frequency  with  which  it  is  mentioned  in  the  prophets, 
especially  as  an  object  of  divine  displeasure,  also  recommend  this  exegetical 
hypothesis.  Knobel  adds  that  the  Edomites  were  subject  to  Judah  till  the 
year  B.  C.  743,  and  would  therefore  naturally  take  part  in  its  sufferings 
from  Babylonian  tyranny.  Clericus  understands  the  question  to  be,  what 
has  happened  since  last  night  ?  The  English  Version  seems  to  mean,  what 
have  you  to  say  of  the  night  ?  Interpreters  are  commonly  agreed,  however, 
that  the  ")»  is  partitive,  and  that  the  question  is,  what  part  of  the  night  is  it, 
equivalent  to  our  question,  what  o'clock  ?  This  may  have  been  a  custom- 
ary method  of  interrogating  watchmen,  vftp  is  indefinite,  or  may  agree 
with  Vip  understood.  (Vide  infra,  ch.  40  :  3.)  Night  is  a  common  meta- 
phor to  represent  calamity,  as  daybreak  does  relief  from  it.  Some  regard 
this  as  a  taunting  inquiry  addressed  to  Judah  by  his  heathen  neighbours.  It 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI.  383 

is  much  more  natural,  however,  to  explain  it  as  an  expression  of  anxiety 
arising  from  a  personal  concern  in  the  result. 

V.  12.  The  watchman  says,  Morning  comes  and  also  night ;  if  ye  wiU 
inquire,  inquire  ;  return,  come,  Grotius  understands  this  to  mean  that 
though  the  natural  morning  might  return,  the  moral  or  spiritual  night  would 
still  continue.  Gesenius  explains  it  as  descriptive  of  vicissitude:  morning 
comes,  but  night  comes  after  it.  Most  writers  understand  it  as  relating  to 
different  subjects :  morning  comes  (to  one)  and  night  (to  another)  ;  which 
would  seem  to  mean  that  while  the  Jewish  night  was  about  to  be  dispelled, 
that  of  Edom  or  Arabia  should  still  continue.  Those  who  regard  these  verses 
as  genuine  but  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  writer,  are  under  the  necessity  of 
referring  them  to  something  which  took  place  in  the  days  of  Isaiah.  Knobel 
for  example  understands  him  here  as  threatening  Edom  with  a  visit  from  the 
Assyrians  on  their  return  from  Egypt.  But  connected  as  the  words  are  with 
the  foregoing  prophecy,  it  is  far  more  natural  to  understand  them  as  referring 
to  the  Babylonian  conquest  of  Judea  and  the  neighbouring  countries.  The 
last  clause  intimates  that  the  event  was  still  uncertain.  Henderson  and 
others  give  to  OU  the  spiritual  sense  of  repentance  and  conversion  ;  but 
there  seems  to  be  no  need  of  departing  from  the  literal  import  of  the  word. 
The  true  sense  of  the  clause  is  that  given  by  Luther.  If  you  wish  to  know 
you  must  inquire  again  ;  you  are  come  too  soon  ;  the  time  of  your  deliver- 
ance is  not  at  hand;  return  or  come  again.  On  any  hypothesis,  however, 
these  two  verses  still  continue  enigmatical  and  doubtful  in  their  meaning. 

V.  13.  The  burden  of  Arabia.  In  the  forest  in  Arabia  shall  ye  lodge, 
oh  ye  caravans  of  Dedanim.  The  genuineness  of  this  verse  and  of  those 
which  follow  is  questioned  by  Eichhorn,  Paulus,  Bauer,  and  Rosenmuller, 
but  defended  by  Knobel  on  the  ground  that  Th»,  ikb5,  and  w&  *rt  are 
expressions  belonging  to  Isaiah's  dialect.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk,  with  the 
older  writers,  regard  these  verses  and  vs.  11,  12  as  forming  one  prophecy. 
But  Knobel  maintains  that  vs.  11,  12  are  of  a  later  date,  for  the  singular 
reason  that  they  speak  with  uncertainty  of  that  which  is  confidently  foretold 
in  the  others.  He  also  alleges  that  the  title  or  inscription  was  taken  from 
the  word  a^sa  in  the  next  clause,  even  the  preposition  being  retained.  But 
a  is  often  interposed  between  words  most  closely  connected,  and  this  very 
combination  occurs  in  Zech.  9:  1,  where  no  such  explanation  can  be  given. 
The  Prophet  here  passes  from  Edom  to  Arabia,  or  from  one  Arabian  tribe 
or  district  to  another.  The  answer  in  v.  12,  that  the  dawn  was  approaching 
for  the  Jews  but  not  for  them,  is  here  explained.  The  country  was  to  be 
in  such  a  state  that  the  caravans  which  usually  travelled  undisturbed  would 
be  obliged  to  leave  the  public  road  and  pass  the  night  among  the  bushes  or 


384  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXI. 

thickets,  which  seems  to  be  here  (and  perhaps  originally)  the  meaning  of 
ns\  Forests  properly  so  called  do  not  exist  in  the  Arabian  desert.  Gese- 
nius  explains  nirnj*  as  the  participle  of  rn«,  used  as  a  noun  in  the  sense  of 
travelling  companies  or  caravans.  The  Dedanim  are  mentioned  elsewhere 
in  connexion  with  Edom  and  Teman  (Jer.  49:8.  Ez.  25 :  13),  to  whom 
they  were  probably  contiguous.  Their  precise  situation  is  the  less  important 
as  they  are  not  the  subjects  of  the  prophecy,  but  spoken  of  as  strangers 
passing  through,  the  interruption  of  whose  journey  is  mentioned  as  a  proof 
of  the  condition  of  the  country.  For  Sfn^J  the  ancient  versions  seem  to  read 
n^sa,  in  which  they  are  followed  by  Lowth,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Kno- 
bel,  the  last  of  whom  defends  the  emendation  on  the  twofold  ground,  that 
5h3  is  a  name  found  only  in  the  later  Hebrew  writers,  and  that  the  addition 
of  this  name  would  be  superfluous,  as  the  caravans  of  Dedanim  must  pass 
of  course  through  the  desert  of  Arabia.  The  first  of  these  arguments  admits 
the  easy  answer  that  this  place  is  itself  a  proof  of  earlier  usage.  To  the 
second  it  may  be  replied,  that  Arabia  is  not  half  so  superfluous  as  evening 
in  connexion  with  •B^Mj,  which  strictly  means  to  spend  the  night.  How 
easy  it  would  be  to  retort  upon  such  criticism  by  demanding  whether  they 
could  pass  the  night  in  the  day-time. 

V.  14.  To  meet  the  thirsty  they  bring  water,  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
of  Tema ;  with  his  bread  they  prevent  (i.  e.  meet  or  anticipate)  the  fugitive. 
The  men  of  Tema,  another  Arabian  tribe,  also  engaged  in  trade  (Jer. 
25:  23.  Job  6:  19),  are  described  as  bringing  food  and  drink,  not  to  the 
Dedanim  mentioned  in  v.  13,  but  to  the  people  of  the  wasted  country.  His 
bread  is  rendered  in  the  English  Version  as  a  collective  (their  bread)  refer- 
ring to  the  men  of  Tema ;  but  the  suffix  relates  rather  to  the  fugitive  him- 
self, and  the  whole  phrase  means  his  portion  of  food,  the  food  necessary  for 
him,  his  daily  bread.  The  ancient  versions  make  the  verbs  imperative  and 
understand  the  sentence  as  an  exhortation  to  the  people  of  Tema.  This 
construction,  which  is  adopted  by  Henderson,  requires  a  change  in  the 
pointing  of  the  text,  for  which  there  is  no  sufficient  authority,  much  less  a 
necessity.  On  the  contrary,  the  context  makes  it  far  more  natural  to  under- 
stand the  Prophet  as  describing  an  act  than  as  exhorting  to  it. 

V.  15.  Because  (or  when)  from  the  presence  of  swords  they  Jled,from 
the  presence  of  a  drawn  sword  and  from  the  presence  of  a  bended  bow,  and 
from  the  presence  of  a  weight  of  war.  This  verse  describes  them  as  not 
only  plundered  but  pursued  by  a  blood-thirsty  enemy,  Mtito,  according  to 
usage,  seems  to  mean  not  only  drawn  or  thrust  forth,  but  given  up,  aban- 
doned to  itself,  and  as  it  were  allowed  to  do  its  worst,     im  is  properly 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII.  385 

weight,  pressure,  burden,  or  oppression.     The  corresponding  verb  is  con- 
nected with  the  same  noun  in  1  Sam.  31  :  3. 

V.  16.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  to  me,  In  yet  a  year  (or  in  a  year  longer) 
like  the  years  of  a  hireling  (i.  e.  strictly  computed)  shall  fail  (or  cease)  all 
the  glory  of  Kedar.     This  verse  seems  to  fix  a  time  for  the  fulfilment  of 
the  foregoing  prophecy.     Here,  as  in  chap.  17:  3,  glory  comprehends  all 
that  constitutes  the  dignity  or  strength  of  a  people.     On  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  T!#j  m-'A-.,  vide  supra,  ch.  16:  14.     Kedar  was  the  second  son  of 
Ishmael  (Gen.  25 :  13).     The  name  is  here  put  either  for  an  Arab  tribe  or 
for  Arabia  in  general  (Isai.  42:  11.  60  :  7.  Ez.  27:  21).     The  Rabbins 
call  the  Arabic  the  language  of  Kedar.     The  chronological  specification  in 
this  verse  makes  it  necessary  either  to  assume  a  later  writer  than  Isaiah,  as 
some  do  in  ch.  16 :  14 ;  or  a  terminus  a  quo  posterior  to  his  time,  as  if  he 
had  said,  within  a  year  after  something  else  before  predicted  ;  or  an  abrupt 
recurrence  from  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar  or  Cyrus  to  those  of  Hezekiah. 
The  last  would  be  wholly  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  prophets ; 
but  the  best  solution  seems  to  be  afforded  by  the  second  hypothesis.     The 
sense  will  then  be  that  the  Arabians  who  suffered  with  the  Jews,  so  far  from 
sharing  their  deliverance,  should  within  a  year  after  that  event  be  entirely 
destroyed.     At  the  same  time,  due  allowance  should  be  made  for  diversity 
of  judgment  in  a  case  so  doubtful. 

V.  17.  And  the  remnant  of  the  number  of  bows  (or  archers),  the  mighty 
men  (or  heroes)  of  the  children  of  Kedar,  shall  be  few  (or  become  few),  for 
Jehovah  God  of  Israel  hath  spoken  it.     rnup  is  here  collective  and  may 
either  be  in  regimen  or  apposition  with  the  words  which  follow.     The  latter 
construction  is  favoured  by  the  accents.    We  read  elsewhere  of  the  archery 
of  Ishmael  (Gen.  21 :  20)  and  Kedar  (Ps.  120:  4).    Another  construction, 
which  refers  the  first  clause  to  the  remnant  left  by  the  bows  of  the  enemy, 
is  possible,  but  should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity.     The  last  clause 
intimates  that  God,  as  the  God  of  Israel,  has  a  quarrel  with  Kedar,  and  at 
the  same  time  that  his  power  and  omniscience  will  secure  the  fulfilment  of 
the  threatening.     It  is  not  impossible  that  future  discoveries  may  yet  throw 
light  upon  these  brief  and  obscure  prophecies. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 


This  chapter  naturally  falls  into  two  parts.     The  first  describes  the 
conduct  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem  during  a  siege,  vs.  1-14.     The  second 

25 


386  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 

predicts  the  removal  of  Shebna  from  his  post  as  treasurer  or  steward  of  the 
royal  household,  vs.  15-25.  The  modern  critics  are  of  course  inclined  to 
treat  these  parts  as  independent  prophecies,  although  they  admit  that  both 
are  by  Isaiah,  and  that  both  were  written  probably  about  the  same  time. 
Against  this  supposition,  and  in  favour  of  regarding  them  as  one  connected 
composition,  we  may  argue,  first,  from  the  want  of  any  title  to  the  second 
part.  This,  it  is  true,  is  not  conclusive,  but  creates  a  presumption  which 
can  only  be  rebutted  by  strong  direct  evidence.  Another  reason  is  that  the 
second  part  of  this  chapter  is  the  only  example  in  Isaiah  of  a  prophecy 
against  an  individual.  This  again  is  not  conclusive,  since  there  might  be 
one  such  prophecy  if  no  more.  But  the  presumption  is  against  it,  as  ana- 
logy and  usage  give  the  preference  to  any  exegetical  hypothesis  which 
would  connect  this  personal  prediction  with  one  of  a  more  general  nature. 
A  third  reason  is  that  in  the  second  part  the  ground  or  occasion  of  the 
threatening  is  not  expressed,  and  it  is  certainly  less  probable  that  the  design 
was  meant  to  be  conjectured  or  inferred  from  the  prophecy  itself,  than  that 
it  is  explained  in  the  passage  which  immediately  precedes  it.  The  result 
appears  to  be,  that  by  considering  the  parts  as  independent  prophecies 
we  leave  the  second  incomplete  and  sui  generis,  whereas  by  combining 
them,  we  make  the  one  explain  the  other ;  and  as  no  philological  or  critical 
objection  has  been  urged  against  this  supposition,  it  is  probably  the  true  one. 
The  whole  may  then  be  described  as  a  prophecy  against  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  in  general,  and  against  Shebna  in  particular,  considered  as  their 
leader  and  example. 

It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  description  in  the  first  part  of  this 
chapter  was  intended  to  apply  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib,  or 
by   Esarhaddon  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  or  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  by 
Titus.     An  obvious  objection  to  the  last  two  is  that  they  leave  the  predic- 
tion against  Shebna  unconnected  with  the  one  before  it.     Cocceius  inge- 
niously suggests  that  Eliakim  and  his  family  were  to  retain  their  official  rank 
and  influence  until  the  city  was  destroyed  and  the  kingdom  of  Judah  at  an 
end ;  but  this,  though  possible,  will  scarcely  be  preferred  to  any  more  natu- 
ral and  simple  supposition.     The  objection  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  is  that 
no  such  extremities  were  then  experienced  as  the  Prophet  here   describes. 
The  objection  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  is  that  vs.  9-11  contain  an  exact  de- 
scription of  the  measures  taken  by  Hezekiah,  as  recorded  in  2  Chron.  32 : 
3-5.     Moved  by  this  consideration,  some  have  assumed  a  reference  to  both 
events,  the  siege  by  Sennacherib,  and  that  by  Nebuchadnezzar.    According 
to  Vitringa,  the  Prophet  first  describes  the  later  event  (vs.  1-5),  and  then 
recurs  to  one  nearer  at  hand  (vs.  6-14),  this  being  placed  last  partly  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  it  into  juxtaposition  with  the  threatening  against  Shebna. 
According  to  Calvin,  vs.  1-5  predict  the  siege  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  while 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXII.  387 

vs.  6-11  describe  that  by  Sennacherib  as  already  past.  These  suppositions, 
though  admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  can  be  justified  by  nothing  short  of 
it.  As  the  measures  described  in  vs.  9-11  were  temporary  ones  which  may 
have  been  frequently  repeated,  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  apply  that 
passage  to  the  times  of  Hezekiah.  If  the  whole  must  be  applied  to  one 
specific  point  of  time,  it  is  probably  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  the  king  of 
Assyria  in  the  days  of  Manasseh,  when  the  latter  was  himself  carried  captive 
with  his  chief  men,  and  Shebna  possibly  among  the  rest.  The  choice  seems 
to  lie  between  this  hypothesis  and  that  of  a  generic  prediction,  a  prophetic 
picture  of  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  in  a  certain  conjuncture  of  affairs  which 
happened  more  than  once,  particular  strokes  of  the  description  being  drawn 
from  different  memorable  sieges,  and  especially  from  those  of  Sennacherib 
and  Nebuchadnezzar. 

V.  1.  The  burden  of  the  Valley  of  Vision.  What  (is)  to  thee  (what 
hast  thou  ?  or  what  aileth  thee  ?)  that  thou  art  wholly  (literally  the  whole 
of  thee)  gone  up  on  the  house-tops  1  The  first  clause  is  not  an  inscription 
of  later  date,  erroneously  copied  from  v.  5  (Hitzig  etc.),  but  the  original 
commencement  of  the  prophecy,  or  of  this  part  of  it.  The  modern  Germans 
pronounce  all  the  titles  in  this  form  spurious,  and  then  make  the  use  of  the 
word  x;J3«  in  each  particular  case  a  proof  of  later  date.  It  is  just  as  easy 
and  far  more  reasonable  to  assert  that  the  use  of  this  word  in  such  connex- 
ions is  a  characteristic  of  Isaiah's  mariner.  The  enigmatical  form  is  inten- 
tional. By  the  valley  of  vision  we  are  not  to  understand  Babylon,  nor 
Judea  (Calvin,  Lightfoot),  but  Jerusalem,  as  being  surrounded  by  hills  with 
valleys  between  them.  There  is  no  allusion  to  the  degradation  which 
awaited  Jerusalem  (Kimchi),  nor  to  the  name  Moriah  (J.  D.  Michaelis), 
nor  to  the  school  of  the  prophets  in  the  valley  at  its  foot  (Vitringa),  nor  to 
the  spectacle  which  was  soon  to  be  there  exhibited  (J.  H.  Michaelis),  but 
to  Jerusalem  as  the  seat  of  revelation,  the  abode  of  the  prophets,  and  the 
place  where  God's  presence  was  manifested.  T^'tv?  as  usual  expresses  both 
surprise  and  disapprobation.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  3:  15.)  The  oriental  roofs 
are  flat  and  used  for  various  purposes.  The  ascent  here  mentioned  has  been 
variously  explained,  as  being  designed  to  gratify  curiosity  by  gazing  at  the 
approaching  enemy  or  the  crowds  of  people  seeking  refuge  in  Jerusalem,  or 
to  assail  the  invaders  or  take  measures  for  resisting  them,  or  to  indulge  in 
grief,  or  to  engage  in  idolatrous  worship,  or  to  celebrate  a  feast.  The  truth 
probably  is,  that  the  expression  is  here  used  as  a  lively  description  of  an  ori- 
ental city  in  commotion,  without  any  intention  to  intimate  as  yet  the  cause 
or  the  occasion,  just  as  we  might  say  that  the  streets  of  our  own  cities  were 
full  of  people,  whether  the  concourse  were  occasioned  by  grief,  joy,  fear,  or 
any  other  cause.     Some  suppose  the  Prophet  to  inquire  as  a  stranger  what 


383  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 

is  the  matter;  but  he  seems  rather  to  express  disapprobation  of  the  stif 
which  he  describes. 

/ 
V.  2.  Full  of  stirs,  a  noisy  town,  a  joyous  city,  thy  slain  are  not 
slain  with  the  sword  nor  dead  in  battle.  The  first  clause  is  commonly 
explained  by  the  older  writers  as  descriptive  of  the  commotion  and  alarm 
occasioned  by  the  enemy's  approach.  But  this  makes  it  necessary  either  to 
give  nnb  a  sense  not  justified  by  usage,  or  to  refer  it  to  a  past  time,  while 
the  other  epithets  are  applied  to  the  present.  Thus  Junius  makes  the  Pro- 
phet ask,  how  is  it  that  the  city  is  now  full  of  confusion  and  alarm  which 
was  once  so  joyous  ?  But  this  distinction  of  times  is  altogether  arbitrary. 
The  same  remark  applies,  but  in  a  less  degree,  to  another  construction 
which  refers  the  whole  clause  to  past  time.  The  latest  writers  are  agreed 
in  making  it  descriptive  of  the  present,  not  in  reference  however  to  alarm 
and  agitation,  but  to  the  opposite  condition  of  joyous  excitement,  frivo- 
lous gayety,  and  reckless  indifference,  described  in  v.  13.  Kennicott  and 
Tingstad  make  "pr^n  mean  thy  warriors,  but  it  is  now  universally  taken 
in  its  usual  sense.  The  expression  thy  slain  are  not  slain  with  the  sword 
cannot  mean  that  none  were  slain,  but  necessarily  implies  mortality  of 
another  kind.  The  allusion  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  to  pestilence,  by 
others  to  famine,  such  as  prevailed  in  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar and  also  by  the  Romans.  As  neither  is  specified,  the  words  may 
be  more  generally  understood  as  describing  all  kinds  of  mortality  incident  to 
sieges,  excepting  that  of  actual  warfare, 

V.  3.  All  thy  chiefs  fled  together — from  the  bow — they  were  bound — - 
all  that  vjere  found  of  thee  were  bound  together — from  afar  they  fled.  This 
verse  describes  the  people,  not  as  crowding  from  the  country  into  Jerusalem, 
nor  as  fleeing  from  the  public  places  in  Jerusalem  to  hide  themselves,  but  as 
flying  from  the  enemy,  and  being  nevertheless  taken.  T&p  is  neither  a  civil 
nor  a  military  chief  exclusively,  but  may  be  applied  to  either,  tts  is  not  to 
wander  but  to  flee.  The  masoretic  accents  connect  ruBpa  with  t"H&K,  ac- 
cording to  which  construction  we  may  either  read,  they  are  bound  (i.  e, 
made  prisoners)  by  the  bow  (i.  e.  the  archers,  as  light-arrived  troops),  or 
ivithout  the  bow  (i.  e.  not  in  battle,  as  the  slain  were  not  slain  with  the 
sword)  ;  or  it  may  mean  without  resistance,  without  drawing  a  bow.  Some 
understand  it  to  mean,  they  are  restrained  (by  fear)  from  (using)  the  bow. 
Ewald  and  some  older  writers  disregard  the  accent  and  connect  nwpa  with 
FfW,  they  fled  from  the  bow,  but  are  nevertheless  taken  prisoners  together* 
All  that  were  found  of  thee  may  be  in  antithesis  to  thy  chiefs,  as  if  he  had 
said,  not  only  thy  chiefs  but  all  the  rest.  Some  understand  this  as  describ- 
ing the  voluntary  confinement  of  the  people  in  Jerusalem  during  a  siege ; 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII.  389 


others  apply  it  to  their  vain  endeavours  to  escape  from  its  privations  and 
dangers.  It  is  best  to  give  the  verse  its  largest  meaning  as  descriptive  of 
the  hardships  and  concomitant  evils  not  of  one  siege  merely  but  of  sieges  in 
general, 

V.  4.  Therefore  I  said  (or  say),  Look  away  from  me  ;  let  me  be  bitter 
in  weeping  (or  weep  bitterly)  ;  try  not  to  comfort  me  for  the  desolation  of  the 
daughter  of  my  people.  These  are  not  the  words  of  Jerusalem  in  answer  to 
the  question  in  v.  1  (Junius),  but  those  of  the  Prophet  expressing  his  sym- 
pathy with  the  sufferings  which  he  foresees  and  foretells,  as  in  ch.  16  :  11. 
21:3.  tt^Kfl  seems  to  include  the  idea  of  obtruding  consolation  upon  one 
who  is  unwilling  to  receive  it.  The  daughter  of  my  people  does  not  mean  the 
towns  dependent  on  Jerusalem  (Junius),  nor  Jerusalem  itself  as  built  by 
the  people  (Clericus),  nor  the  sons  of  the  people  expressed  by  a  feminine  col- 
lective (Gesenius),  but  the  people  itself,  poetically  represented  as  a  woman, 
and  affectionately  spoken  of  as  a  daughter. 

V.  5.  For  there  is  a  day  of  confusion  and  trampling  and  perplexity  to 
the  Lord  Jehovah  of  Hosts  in  the  valley  of  vision — breaking  the  wall  and 
crying  to  the  mountain.  *¥ivfc  does  not  mean  from  or  by  the  Lord,  as  the 
efficient  cause,  but  to  the  Lord  as  the  possessor.  It  is  equivalent  to  our 
phrase  the  Lord  has,  which  cannot  be  otherwise  expressed  in  Hebrew.  He 
has  a  day  i.  e.  he  has  it  appointed,  or  has  it  in  reserve.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  2:  12.) 
Trampling  does  not  refer  to  the  treading  down  of  the  fields  and  gardens, 
but  of  men  in  battle,  or  at  least  in  a  general  commotion  and  confusion.  -!pHp?2 
has  been  variously  explained  as  a  participle  and  a  noun,  and  as  expressing 
the  ideas  of  breaking  down,  shouting,  and  placing  chariots  or  wagons  in 
array,  siis  is  not  simply  a  cry  but  a  cry  for  help.  To  the  mountain  are 
not  the  words  of  the  cry,  but  its  direction.  The  mountain  is  not  Jerusalem 
or  Zion  as  the  residence  of  God,  but  the  mountains  round  about  Jerusalem 
(Ps.  125:  1.)  The  meaning  is  not  that  the  people  are  heard  crying  on 
their  way  to  the  mountain,  but  rather  that  their  cries  are  reverberated  from 
it.     The  whole  verse  is  a  vivid  poetical  description  of  the  confusion  of  a  siege. 

V.  6.  And  Elam  bare  a  quiver,  with  chariots,  men  (i.  e.  infantry), 
horsemen,  and  Kir  uncovered  the  shield.  Elam  was  a  province  of  Persia, 
often  put  for  the  whole  country.  Its  people  were  celebrated  archers.  Some 
read  chariots  of  men  i.  e.  occupied  by  men,  which  would  seem  to  be  a  su- 
perfluous description.  Others  read  cavalry  or  riding  of  men  i.  e.  mounted 
men  as  in  ch.  21  :  5,  but  in  that  case  c--2  would  be  superfluous.  Others 
give  aai,  here  and  in  ch.  21,  the  sense  of  row,  line,  troop,  or  column,  which 
is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  usage.  Others  give  -  its  usual  sense  of  in, 
which  cannot  however  be  applied  to  horsemen.    The  sense  of  horses,  doubt- 


390  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 

ful  at  best,  is  entirely  unnecessary  here.  On  the  whole,  the  simplest  and 
most  natural  construction  seems  to  be  that  which  supposes  three  kinds 
of  troops  to  be  here  enumerated  ;  cavalry,  infantry,  and  men  in  chariots. 
Kir  is  now  agreed  to  be  identical  with  Kvqog,  the  name  of  a  river 
rising  in  the  Caucasus  and  emptying  into  the  Caspian  sea,  from  which 
Georgia  (Girgistan)  is  supposed  to  derive  its  name.  Kir  was  subject 
to  Assyria  in  the  time  of  Isaiah,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  it  was 
one  of  the  regions  to  which  the  exiles  of  the  ten  tribes  were  transported.  It 
may  here  be  put  for  Media,  as  Elam  is  for  Persia.  The  uncovering  of  the 
shield  has  reference  to  the  involucra  clypeorum  and  the  tegimenta  scuiis  detra- 
henda,  of  which  Cicero  and  Cesar  speak,  leathern  cases  used  to  protect  the 
shield  or  keep  it  bright.  The  removal  of  these  denotes  preparation  for  battle. 
The  ancient  versions  and  some  modern  writers  make  "pp  an  appellative  and 
translate  the  clause,  the  shield  leaves  the  wall  bare  by  being  taken  down 
from  the  place  where  it  hung,  or  the  enemy  deprives  the  wall  of  its  shield 
i.  e.  its  defenders.  Some  even  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  testudo  or  covered 
way  of  shields,  under  which  the  Roman  soldiers  used  to  advance  to  the  walls 
of  a  besieged  town.  All  the  latest  writers  are  agreed  in  making  *Pp  a  pro- 
per name.  The  verbs  are  in  the  past  tense,  which  proves  nothing  however 
as  to  the  date  of  the  events  described. 

V.  7.  And  it  came  to  pass  (that)  the  choice  of  thy  valleys  (thy  choicest 
valleys)  were  fall  of  chariots,  and  the  horsemen  drew  up  (or  took  up  a  posi- 
tion) towards  the  gate.     The  most  obvious  construction  of  the  first  clause, 
and  the  one  indicated  by  the  accents,  is,  the  choice  of  thy  valleys  was,  or  it 
was  the  choice  of  thy  valleys ;  but  as  this  seems  forbidden  by  the  following 
words,  most  writers  either  omit  W1  as  a    mere  pleonasm,  or  give  it  the 
usual   idiomatic   meaning  when  it  introduces  or  continues  a  narrative.     It 
seems  here  to  mark  the  progress  of  events.     The  Prophet  sees  something 
which  he  did  not  see  before.    He  had  seen  the  chariots  and  horsemen  com- 
ing ;  but  now  he  sees  the  valleys   around  full   of  them.     The  future  form 
adopted  by  some  versions  is  entirely  unauthorized.     Whatever  be  the  real 
date  of  the  events  described,  the  Prophet  evidently  meant  to  speak  of  them 
as  past  or  present,  and  we  have  neither  right  nor  reason  to  depart  from  his 
chosen  form  of  expression.     The  address  is  to  Jerusalem.     The  valleys  are 
mentioned  as  the  only  places  where  the  cavalry  or  chariots  could  be  useful 
or  could  act  at  all.  As  the  only  level  approach  to  Jerusalem  is  on  the  north, 
that   quarter  may  be  specially  intended,  and  the  gate  may  be  a  gate  on  that 
side  of  the  city.     Otherwise  it  would  be  better  to  take  msttJ  indefinitely  as 
denoting  the  direction  of  the  movement.     MB  may  either  be  explained  as  an 
emphatic  infinitive,  in  which  case  the  verb  will  be  reflexive  or  govern  some- 
thing understood,  or  as  a  verbal  noun  equivalent  in  this  connexion  to  our 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XX11.  391 

post  or  station.  Another  admissible  construction  is  to  make  BMpnMl  the  ob- 
ject of  the  verb,  and  the  verb  itself  indefinite  :  '  they  station  the  horsemen 
opposite  the  gate.' 

V.  8.  And  he  removed  the  covering  of  Judah,  and  thou  didst  look  in 
that  day  to  the  armour  of  the  house  of  the  forest.  The  first  verb,  which 
some  connect  with  the  enemy  and  others  with  Jehovah  understood,  is  really 
indefinite  and  may  be  resolved  into  an  English  passive,  the  covering  was 
removed.  This  expression  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  the  dis- 
closure of  long  hidden  treasures — the  taking  of  the  fortified  towns  of  Judah 
by  Sennacherib — the  disclosure  of  the  weak  points  of  the  country  to  the 
enemy — the  opening  of  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  themselves  to  their  own  con- 
dition— the  ignominious  treatment  of  the  people,  represented  by  the  oriental 
figure  of  an  unveiled  virgin.  The  analogous  expression  of  taking  away  the 
veil  from  the  heart  (2  Cor.  3:  15,  16),  and  the  immediate  mention  of  the 
measures  used  for  the  defence  of  the  city,  are  perhaps  decisive  in  favour  of 
explaining  the  words  to  mean  that  the  Jews'  own  eyes  were  opened.  As 
aan  cannot  well  agree  with  rfWT*,  which  as  the  name  of  the  people  must  be 
masculine,  it  is  best  to  understand  it  as  the  second  person,  and  to  suppose  an 
abrupt  apostrophe  to  Judah,  a  figure  of  perpetual  occurrence  in  Isaiah. 
nsvi  mn  is  not  a  proper  name,  but  the  designation  of  a  house  built  by  Solo- 
mon, and  elsewhere  called  the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon,  because  erect- 
ed on  that  mountain,  as  some  writers  think,  but  according  to  the  common 
opinion,  because  built  of  cedar-wood  from  Lebanon.  This  house  is  com- 
monly supposed  to  have  been  either  intended  for  an  arsenal  by  Solomon  him- 
self, or  converted  into  one  by  some  of  his  successors,  and  to  be  spoken  of  in 
Neh.  3:19  under  the  name  of  P'i'3.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  the 
house  contained  only  the  golden  shields  of  Solomon  and  Rehoboam.  The 
fact  that  these  were  there  deposited  might  naturally  lead  to  a  more  exten- 
sive use  of  the  building  for  the  purpose  mentioned.  Looking  to  this  arsenal 
implies  dependence  on  its  stores  as  the  best  means  of  defence  against  the 
enemy,  unless  we  understand  the  words  to  signify  inspection,  which  agrees 
well  with  what  follows,  but  is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  the  usage  of  the 
verb  and  preposition.  In  that  day  seems  to  mean  at  length,  i.  e.  when  made 
aware  of  their  danger. 

V.  9.  And  the  breaches  of  the  city  of  David  ye  saw,  that  they  were 
many,  and  ye  gathered  the  waters  of  the  lower  pool.  The  breaches  meant 
are  not  those  made  by  the  enemy  in  the  siege  here  described,  but  those 
caused  by  previous  neglect  and  decay.  The  city  of  David  may  be  either 
taken  as  a  poetical  name  for  Jerusalem  at  large,  or  in  its  strict  sense  as  de- 
noting the  upper  town  upon  Mount  Zion,  which  was  surrounded  by  a  wall 


392  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 

of  its  own,  and  called  the  city  of  David  because  he  took  it  from  the  Jebusites 
and  afterwards  resided  there.  Ye  saw  may  either  mean,  ye  saw  them  for 
the  first  time,  at  length  became  aware  of  them,  or,  ye  looked  at  them,  ex 
amined  them,  with  a  view  to  their  repair.  The  last  is  more  probably  im- 
plied than  expressed.  ^  may  with  equal  propriety  be  rendered  for,  imply- 
ing that  they  could  no  longer  overlook  or  fail  to  see  them,  because  they 
were  so  many.  The  last  clause  describes  a  measure  of  defence  peculiarly 
important  at  Jerusalem  where  there  are  very  few  perennial  springs.  This 
precaution  (as  well  as  the  one  previously  hinted  at)  was  actually  taken  by 
Hezekiah  in  the  prospect  of  Sennacherib's  approach  (2  Chr.  32  :  4),  and  has 
perhaps  been  repeated  in  every  siege  of  any  length  which  Jerusalem  has 
since  experienced.  The  lower  pool  is  probably  the  tank  or  reservoir  still  in 
existence  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom  opposite  the  western  side  of  Mount  Zion. 
This  name,  which  occurs  only  here,  has  reference  to  the  upper  pool  higher 
up  in  the  same  valley  near  the  Jaffa  gate.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  7 :  3.  Compare 
Robinson's  Palestine,  I.  483-487.) 

V.  10.  And  the  houses  of  Jerusalem  ye  numbered,  and  ye  pulled  down 
the  houses  to  repair  (rebuild  or  fortify)  the  walL  The  numbering  of  the 
houses  probably  has  reference,  not  to  the  levying  of  men  or  of  a  tax,  but  to 
the  measure  mentioned  in  the  last  clause,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  what 
houses  could  be  spared,  and  perhaps  of  estimating  the  expense.  The 
houses  are  destroyed,  not  merely  to  make  room  for  new  erections,  but  to  fur- 
nish materials.    Ancient  Jerusalem,  like  that  of  our  day,  was  built  of  stone. 

V.  11.  And  a  reservoir  ye  made  between  the  two  walls  (or  the  double 
wall)  for  the  waters  of  the  old  pool,  and  ye  did  not  look  to  the  maker  of 
it,  and  the  former  of  it  ye  did  not  see.  ^pn  according  to  its  etymology  is 
a  place  of  gathering,  and  according  to  usage  a  place  where  waters  are  col- 
lected. As  the  Hebrew  dual  is  not  a  mere  periphrasis  for  two  (vide  supra 
ch.  6 :  2),  Danish  cannot  simply  mean  two  walls,  but  must  denote  a  double 
wall  in  some  situation  where  but  one  had  been  before,  or  might  have  been 
expected.  The  reference  is  probably  to  a  wall  built  out  from  that  of  the 
city  and  returning  to  it,  so  as  to  enclose  the  tank  or  reservoir  here  mentioned. 
As  this  was  a  temporary  measure,  perhaps  often  repeated,  there  is  no  need 
of  tracing  it  in  other  parts  of  history  or  in  the  present  condition  of  Jerusalem. 
It  is  altogether  probable,  however,  that  the  old  pool  here  mentioned  is  the 
same  with  the  upper  pool  of  ch.  7  :  3.  Some  have  identified  it  with  the 
lower  pool  of  the  ninth  verse,  but  this  would  hardly  have  been  introduced 
so  soon  by  another  name.  The  last  clause  shows  that  the  fault,  with  which 
the  people  of  Jerusalem  were  chargeable,  was  not  that  of  guarding  them- 
selves against  attack,  but  that  of  relying  upon  human  defences,  without  re- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII.  393 


gard  to  God.  The  verbs  look  and  see  are  evidently  used  in  allusion  to  the 
last  clause  of  v.  8  and  the  first  of  v.  9.  They  looked  to  the  arsenal  but  not 
to  God.  This  seems  to  put  the  clause  before  us  in  antithesis  to  the  whole 
foregoing  context  from  v.  8.  If  so,  the  sufiixes  in  rYW  and  ffW  cannot  re- 
fer merely  to  the  pool  or  reservoir,  but  must  have  respect  either  to  the  city, 
or  to  the  calamity  now  coming  on  it.  In  the  latter  case,  the  feminine  pro- 
noun may  be  indefinitely  understood  as  a  neuter  in  Greek  or  Latin,  it,  i.  e. 
this  crisis  or  catastrophe,  or  the  whole  series  of  events  which  led  to  it. 
Maker  and  former  are  not  distinctive  terms  referring  to  God's  purpose  or 
decree  on  one  hand,  and  the  execution  of  it  on  the  other,  but  poetical  equi- 
valents both  denoting  the  efficient  cause. 

V.  12.  And  the  Lord  Jehovah  of  Hosts  called  in  that  day  to  ivecping 
and  to  mourning  and  to  haldness  and  to  girding  sackcloth.  The  meaning 
is  not  that  he  called  or  summoned  grief  to  come,  but  that  he  called  on  men 
to  mourn,  not  only  by  his  providence,  but  by  his  word  through  the  pro- 
phets. By  baldness  we  may  either  understand  the  tearing  of  the  hair,  or 
the  shaving  of  the  head,  or  both,  as  customary  signs  of  grief.  The  last 
phrase,  rendered  in  the  English  Bible  girding  with  sackcloth,  does  not  mean 
girding  up  the  other  garments  with  a  sackcloth  girdle,  but  girding  the  body 
with  a  sackcloth  dress,  or  girding  on  i.  e.  wearing  sackcloth.  The  provi- 
dential call  to  mourning  here  referred  to  must  be  the  siege  before  described. 

V.  1 3.  And  behold  mirth  and  jollity,  slaying  of  oxen  and  killuig  of 
sheep,  eating  of  flesh  and  drinking  of  wine  ;  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow 
we  die.  This  verse  presents  the  contrast  of  their  actual  behaviour  with 
that  to  which  God  called  them  by  his  providence.  The  construction  in 
the  common  version  is  ambiguous,  as  slaying  etc.  seem  to  be  participles 
agreeing  with  joy  and  gladness,  whereas  the  Hebrew  verbs  are  all  infini- 
tives. Some  suppose  the  words  of  the  revellers  to  begin  with  aHn  (let  us 
kill  etc.),  others  with  bbx  (let  us  eat  flesh  etc.)  ;  but  the  common  division 
of  the  sentence  is  most  natural,  because  there  is  then  no  repetition  or  tauto- 
logy. In  the  one  case,  the  people  themselves  say,  let  us  eat  flesh  and  drink 
wine,  let  us  eat  and  drink.  In  the  other  it  is  said  that  they  do  eat  flesh  and 
drink  wine,  and  they  are  then  introduced  as  saying,  let  us  eat  and  drink. 
On  the  same  ground,  the  common  interpretation  is  to  be  preferred  to  Hen- 
dewerk's  idea,  that  the  whole  verse  contains  the  words  of  the  Prophet,  and 
that  those  of  the  people  are  not  introduced  at  all.  '  Slaying  of  oxen,  killing 
of  sheep,  eating  of  flesh,  drinking  of  wine,  eating,  drinking,  though  to-mor- 
row we  die  !'  Another  objection  to  this  construction  is,  that  it  supposes  the 
event  to  be  still  future  even  to  the  Prophet's  view  ;  whereas  the  whole  fore- 
going context  represents  it  as  already  past,  if  not  in  fact,  at  least  in  his  per- 


394  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 


ceptions.  The  common  version,  let  us  eat  and  drink,  is  perfectly  correct 
as  to  sense,  but  needlessly  departs  from  the  peculiar  and  expressive  form  of 
the  original.  I  have  substituted  eat  and  drink,  not  as  imperatives,  but  as 
the  simplest  forms  of  the  English  verbs.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  21  :  5.)  To  eat 
and  to  drink  might  be  considered  more  exact,  but  would  not  exhibit  the  com- 
pression and  breviloquence  of  the  original.  It  has  been  disputed  whether 
these  last  words  are  expressive  of  contemptuous  incredulity  or  of  a  desper- 
ate determination  to  spend  the  residue  of  life  in  pleasure.  It  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  these  two  feelings  are  exclusive  of  each  other,  since  the  same  man 
might  express  his  disbelief  of  the  threatening,  and  his  resolution,  if  it  should 
prove  true,  to  die  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  favourite  indulgences.  At  all 
events,  there  can  be  no  need  of  restricting  the  full  import  of  the  language, 
as  adapted  to  express  both  states  of  mind,  in  different  persons,  if  not  in 
the  same. 

V.  14.  And  Jehovah  of  Hosts  revealed  himself  in  my  ears  (i.  e.  made 
a  revelation  to  me,  saying)  If  this  iniquity  shall  be  forgiven  you  (i.  e.  it 
certainly  shall  not  be  forgiven  you)  until  you  die.  Some  take  rfca?  as  a  sim- 
ple passive  and  supply  a  preposition  before  HjiTji  it  was  revealed  in  my  ears 
by  Jehovah  of  Hosts.  This  is  no  doubt  the  true  sense ;  but  the  construc- 
tion of  the  verb  as  a  reflexive  with  ttjm  for  its  subject,  is  fully  justified  by 
the  analogy  of  1  Sam.  2  :  27.  3:  21.  It  is  wholly  unnecessary,  therefore, 
to  read  ^ta,  l  in  the  ears  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts,'  or  to  supply  ■»*,  <  in  my 
ears,  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts.'  (Vide  supra,  ch.  5  :  9.)  The  i  before  r&aa  is 
not  conversive,  as  it  does  not  connect  it  with  the  future  hWSj  which  is 
merely  a  quotation,  but  with  the  infinitives  in  the  first  clause  of  v.  13,  which 
represent  historical  or  descriptive  tenses.  (Nordheimer  <§>  219.)  The 
conditional  form  of  expression,  so  far  from  expressing  doubt  or  contingency, 
adds  to  the  following  declaration  the  solemnity  of  an  oath.  What  is  said  is 
also  sworn,  so  that  by  two  immutable  things  in  which  it  is  impossible  for 
God  to  lie,  the  truth  of  the  threatening  may  be  confirmed.  On  the  elliptical 
formula  of  swearing,  vide  supra,  ch.  5  :  9.  This  iniquity  of  course  means 
the  presumptuous  contempt  of  God's  messages  and  providential  warnings, 
with  which  the  people  had  been  charged  in  the  preceding  verse.  This 
offence  is  here  treated  as  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  is  indeed  very  much  of  the  same  nature.  IBS?  strictly  means 
shall  be  atoned  for  or  expiated.  Until  you  die  is  equivalent  to  ever,  the 
impossibility  of  expiation  afterwards  being  assumed.  This  use  of  until  is 
common  in  all  languages.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers  understand  the 
words  to  mean  at  death  but  not  before,  and  draw  the  inference  that  death 
does  or  may  atone  for  sin.  But  the  Targum  has  the  second  death  (xma 
Wssn),  a  phrase  found  also  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  (6  dwTsoog 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII.  395 

tidvcuog),  and  constantly  employed  in  modern  religious  phraseology  to  sig- 
nify eternal  perdition.  In  this  case,  however,  there  is  no  ground  for  de- 
parting from  the  simple  and  ordinary  meaning  of  the  words.  *  As  long  as 
you  live  you  shall  not  be  forgiven'  is  equivalent  to  saying  'you  shall  never 
be  forgiven. ' 

V.  15.  Thus  said  the  Lord  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  Go,  go  in  to  this  trea- 
surer (or  steward,  or  chamberlain),  to  Shebna  who  (is)  over  the  house. 
From  the  people  in  general  the  threatening  now  passes  to  an  individual,  no 
doubt  because  he  was  particularly  guilty  of  the  crime  alleged,  and  by  his 
influence  the  means  of  leading  others  astray  likewise.  The  word  ',=b  has 
been  variously  derived  and  explained  to  mean  a  Sochenite  (from  Sochen  in 
Egypt),  a  sojourner  or  dweller  (i.  q.  ^to)  in  the  sanctuary,  a  steward  or 
provider,  a  treasurer,  and  an  amicus  regis  or  king's  friend,  i.  e.  his  confi- 
dant and  counsellor.  Some  understand  the  last  words  of  the  verse  as 
simply  explanatory  of  this  title  ;  while  others  argue  that  the  Prophet  would 
hardly  have  described  the  man  by  two  titles  meaning  the  same  thing.  A 
third  class  deny  that  ",3b  is  here  applied  to  Shebna  at  all,  and  understand  the 
words  to  mean  this  steward  of  Shebna?  s,  or  this  (person)  labouring  for 
Shebyia,  i.  e.  making  his  monument.  But  Shebna  himself  is  undoubtedly  the 
object  of  address  in  the  remainder  of  the  chapter.  Whatever  yzb  may  denote, 
it  must  be  something  compatible  with  the  description  in  the  last  clause  of 
the  verse.  Whatever  Shebna  may  have  been  as  "jab-,  he  was  certainly  over 
the  house.  Some  of  the  ancient  versions  give  to  house  here  the  sense  of  tem- 
ple or  the  house  of  God,  and  infer  that  Shebna,  if  not  High  Priest  or  a  Priest 
at  all,  was  at  least  the  treasurer  of  the  temple.  But  the  phrase  here  used 
is  nowhere  else  employed  in  reference  to  the  temple,  whereas  it  repeatedly 
occurs  as  the  description  of  an  officer  of  state  or  of  the  royal  household,  a 
major-domo,  chamberlain,  or  steward.  As  the  modern  distinction  between 
state  and  household  officers  is  not  an  ancient  or  an  oriental  one,  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  the  functionary  thus  described,  like  the  medieval  maires  du 
palais,  was  in  fact  prime-minister.  This  would  account  for  the  influence 
tacitly  ascribed  to  Shebna  in  this  chapter,  as  well  as  for  his  being  made  the 
subject  of  a  prophecy.  The  phrase  this  treasurer  may  either  be  expressive 
of  disapprobation  or  contempt,  or  simply  designate  the  man  as  well  known 
to  the  Prophet  and  his  readers.  These  familiar  allusions  to  things  and  per- 
sons now  forgotten,  while  they  add  to  the  obscurity  of  the  passage,  furnish 
an  incidental  proof  of  its  antiquity  and  genuineness.  The  double  imperative 
lt*"*ft  admits  of  different  explanations.  The  second  may  perhaps  mean  go, 
and  the  first  be  a  particle  of  exhortation  like  the  Latin  age.  It  might  then 
be  rendered  come  go,  although  this  would  be  really  an  inversion  of  the  He- 
brew phrase,  which  strictly  means  go  come.     On  the  whole,  however,  it  is 


396  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 

better  to  give  Tj«>  the  sense  of  go,  and  aa  that  of  enter  or  go  in,  meaning  into 
Shebna's  house,  or  into  the  sepulchre  which  he  was  preparing,  and  in  which 
some  suppose  him  to  have  been  accosted  by  the  Prophet.  The  use  of  b)  for 
hx  before  xsaai  is  supposed  by  some'  to  imply  the  unfavourable  nature  of  the 
message  ;  but  the  interchange  of  the  particles  is  not  so  unusual  as  to  make 
this  explanation  necessary.  Some  manuscripts  and  versions  add  and  say  to 
him,  which  any  reader  can  supply  for  himself  without  an  emendation  of 
the  text. 

V.  16.  What  hast  thou  here,  and  whom  hast  thou  here,  that  thou  hast 
hewn  thee  here  a  sepulchre  1  Hewing  on  high  his  sepulchre,  graving  in 
the  rock  a  habitation  for  himself  I  The  negation  implied  in  the  interroga- 
tion is  not  that  he  had  none  to  protect  and  aid  him,  or  that  none  of  his  kin- 
dred should  be  buried  there  because  they  should  be  banished  with  him,  but 
rather  that  he  had  none  buried  there  before  him ;  it  was  not  his  birth-place 
or  the  home  of  his  fathers.  What  interest,  what  part  or  lot,  what  per- 
sonal or  hereditary  claim,  hast  thou  in  Judah  ?  Here  then  refers  not  to  the 
sepulchre,  but  to  Jerusalem.  The  foreign  form  of  the  name  Shebna,  which 
occurs  only  in  the  history  of  Hezekiah,  and  for  which  no  satisfactory  He- 
brew etymology  has  been  proposed,  seems  to  confirm  this  explanation  of  the 
first  clause  as  representing  him  to  be  a  foreigner,  perhaps  a  heathen.  An- 
other confirmation  is  afforded  by  the  otherwise  unimportant  circumstance, 
that  the  name  of  Shebna's  father  is  nowhere  added  to  his  own,  as  in  the 
case  of  Eliakim  and  Joah  (v.  20.  ch.  36  :  3).  These  seem  to  be  sufficient 
reasons  for  concluding  that  the  Prophet  is  directed  to  upbraid  him,  not  with 
seeking  to  be  buried  in  the  royal  sepulchres  although  of  mean  extraction, 
but  with  making  provision  for  himself  and  his  posterity  in  a  land  to  which 
he  was  an  alien,  and  from  which  he  was  so  soon  to  be  expelled.  The  third 
person  in  the  last  clause  is  not  to  be  gratuitously  changed  into  the  second 
(thy  sepulchre,  a  habitation  for  thyself),  nor  is  the  syntax  to  be  solved  by 
introducing  a  comparison  (as  he  that  heweth),  but  rather  by  supposing  that 
the  Prophet,  after  putting  to  him  the  prescribed  question,  was  to  express  his 
own  contemptuous  surprise  at  what  he  saw,  or  as  Maurer  says,  to  let  his 
eyes  pass  from  the  man  to  the  sepulchre  which  he  was  hewing.  It  is  not 
necessarily  implied  however  in  this  explanation  that  the  conversation  was 
to  take  place  at  the  sepulchre.  &*ftt)  is  properly  a  noun,  and  means  a  high 
place,  but  is  here  and  elsewhere  used  adverbially.  The  labour  and  expense 
bestowed  on  ancient  sepulchres  (of  far  later  date  however  than  Isaiah's  time) 
is  still  attested  by  the  tombs  remaining  at  Jerusalem,  Petra,  and  Persepolis, 
where  some  are  excavated  near  the  tops  of  lofty  rocks  in  order  to  be  less 
accessible,  to  which  practice  there  may  be  allusion  in  the  cho  of  the  verse 
before  us,  as  well  as  in  the  words  of  2  Chr.  32  :  33,  as  explained  by  most 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII.  397 


interpreters,  viz.  that  Hezekiah  was  buried  in  the  highest  of  the  tombs  of  the 
sons  of  David.  (See  Robinson's  Palestine,  I.  516-539.  II.  5-25.)  The 
•jsttj^a  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  allusion  to  the  oriental  practice  of  mak- 
ing tombs  in  shape  (and  frequently  in  size)  like  houses,  by  others  more 
poetically  to  the  idea  of  the  grave,  as  a  long  home  (ubis  rna),  the  very 
name  applied  to  it  by  Solomon  (Ecc.  12:  5).  In  this  case,  as  in  many 
others,  the  ideal  and  material  allusion  may  have  both  been  present  to  the 
writer's  mind.  What  (is)  to  thee  and  who  is  to  thee  are  the  usual  unavoid- 
able periphrases  for  what  and  whom  hast  thou,  the  verb  to  have  being 
wholly  wanting  in  this  family  of  languages. 

V.  IT.  Behold,  Jehovah  is  casting  thee  a  cast,  oh  man  I  and  covering 
thee  a  covering.  The  addition  of  the  infinitive  or  verbal  noun  as  usual  adds 
emphasis  to  the  expression,  while  the  participle  denotes  a  present  act  or  a 
proximate  futurity.  The  idea  is  that  he  is  certainly  about  to  cast  and  cover 
thee,  or  to  do  it  completely  and  with  violence.  bS'^v  is  by  some  rendered 
casting  out,  by  others  casting  doivn.  The  latter  agrees  best  with  the  ety- 
mology and  with  the  rest  of  the  description.  Those  who  give  the  other 
sense  are  under  the  necessity  of  assuming,  that  the  Prophet,  after  saying  that 
the  Lord  would  cast  him  off,  goes  back  to  the  preliminary  acts  of  seizing 
him  and  rolling  him.  The  other  explanation  gives  the  natural  order.  First 
he  is  thrown  upon  the  ground,  then  rolled  into  a  ball,  and  then  violently 
thrown  away.  Some  of  the  latest  writers  give  H122?  the  sense  of  seizing, 
grasping,  founded  on  an  Arabic  analogy,  and  justified  as  they  suppose  by 
the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  1  Sam.  14  :  32.  15  :  19.  25  :  14.  But 
except  in  these  few  doubtful  cases  the  word  uniformly  signifies  to  veil  or 
cover.  As  this  is  the  term  used  in  the  law  which  requires  the  leper  to  cover 
his  upper  lip  (Lev.  13:45),  Grotius,  with  perverse  ingenuity,  infers  that 
Shebna  was  to  be  smitten  with  leprosy,  excluded  from  the  city  on  that  ac- 
count, and  afterwards  restored,  but  not  reinstated  in  his  former  office.  Ge- 
senius  gives  nar  the  sense  of  wrapping  up,  and  makes  it  thus  synonymous 
with  ?}%.  As  both  the  terms  have  reference  to  the  figure  of  a  ball,  the  dis- 
tinction seems  to  be  that  the  first  denotes  the  imposition  of  a  covering  or 
wrapper,  and  the  second  the  formation  of  the  whole  into  a  regular  and  com- 
pact shape.  There  are  several  different  ways  of  construing  ina  with  the 
words  before  it.  Some  suppose  it  to  be  governed  by  hW&e — with  the 
cast  of  a  man,  i.  e.  a  manly,  vigorous,  or  powerful  cast.  In  this  case  we 
must  either  suppose  r&dbu  to  be  an  absolute  form  put  for  the  construct — or 
nb^ba  to  be  understood  after  it— or  "OS  to  be  in  apposition  with  it,  or  in  agree- 
ment with  it  as  an  adjective — all  which  are  gratuitous  and  forced 
assumptions.  A  better  method  of  obtaining  the  same  sense  is  by  trans- 
lating 'iss — like  a  man  i.e.  a   mighty  man.     (Compare  Job  38:  3.)     Ac- 


393  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 

cording  to  Hendewerk,  hV«5«a  is  a  verbal  noun  construed  as  an  infinitive 
and  governing  *iai  as  t&i  does  MiW  in  ch.  11:  9.  The  sense  is  then 
with  the  casting  of  a  man  i.  e.  as  a  man  is  cast  or  thrown.  But  the  throw- 
ing of  a  man  is  the  very  thing  here  likened  to  the  throwing  of  a  ball.  The 
simplest  construction  is  the  one  given  by  Ewald  and  by  many  older  writers, 
which  takes  *ea  as  a  vocative.  J.  D.  Michaelis  reads  !ifc$  and  translates  it 
oh  robber  !  But  this  is  not  the  meaning  even  of  that  word.  Others  take 
15a  in  its  proper  sense  of  mighty  man,  others  in  the  simple  sense  of  man  as 
distinguished  from  God,  of  which  use  there  are  several  unequivocal  exam- 
ples. (Job  22:  2.   10:  5.  Prov.  20:  4.) 

V.  18.  Rolling  he  will  roll  thee  in  a  roll,  like  a  ball  (throw?i)  into  a 
spacious  ground — there  shalt  thou  die — and  there  the  chariots  of  thy 
glory — shame  of  thy  master's  house.  The  ejection  of  Shebna  from  the 
country  is  compared  to  the  rolling  of  a  ball  into  an  open  space  where  there 
is  nothing  to  obstruct  its  progress.  The  ideas  suggested  are  those  of  vio- 
lence, rapidity,  and  distance.  Maurer  supposes  tpx  to  denote  a  rolling  mo- 
tion ;  but  most  interpreters  apply  it  to  the  act  of  rolling  up  into  a  ball,  which 
agrees  better  both  with  usage  and  the  context.  The  ellipsis  of  thrown  or 
cast  before  ba  is  altogether  natural  and  easily  supplied.  Instead  of  spacious 
the  original  has  ta^T*  ram  wide  on  both  hands  or  sides,  i.  e.  extended  and 
open  in  every  direction.  All  the  interpreters  appear  to  apply  this  directly 
to  Shebna,  and  are  thence  led  to  raise  the  question,  what  land  is  meant  ? 
Some  say  Assyria,  some  Mesopotamia,  Ewald  the  wilderness,  Grotius 
the  open  fields  out  of  Jerusalem  where  lepers  were  obliged  to  dwell.  It 
seems  to  me  however  that  the  phrase  in  question  has  relation  not  to  Shebna 
as  a  man  but  to  the  ball  with  which  he  is  compared,  and  that  "pa  should  be 
taken  in  the  sense  of  ground.  To  the  three  derivatives  of  tps  in  the  first 
clause  Henderson  cites  as  illustrative  parallels  ch.  27  :  7.  10:  16.  29:  14. 
Mic.  2 :  4,  and  from  the  classics,  the  novog  n6v<#  novov  yeast  of  Sophocles  and 
the  doaiv  xaxav  xaxwv  xuxoig  of  iEschylus.  There  are  several  different  con- 
structions of  the  last  clause.  The  oldest  versions  make  mn3*ra  the  subject 
and  V'P  tne  predicate  of  the  same  proposition  :  '  the  chariots  of  thy  glory 
(shall  be)  the  shame  of  thy  lord's  house.'  This  can  only  mean  that  the 
king  would  be  disgraced  by  having  honoured  such  a  man,  chariots  being  then 
put  as  an  outward  sign  of  dignity  and  wealth.  Most  writers  make  "jiVp  and 
what  follows  a  description  of  Shebna  addressed  to  himself  Q  thou  shame  of  thy 
master's  house'),  and  construe  maaiB  either  with  nn»n  (<  and  there  shall 
thy  splendid  chariots  perish')  or  with  the  verb  of  existence  understood, 
(<  there  shall  thy  splendid  chariots  be.')  As  Siatt  properly  means  thither, 
it  may  be  so  taken  here,  the  construction  with  rnan  being  then  a  pregnant 
one :  thither  shalt  thou  die  (i.  e.  thither  shalt  thou  go  to  die)  and  thither 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII.  399 

shall  thy  splendid  chariots  (convey  thee.)  The  allusion  will  then  be  simply 
to  Shebna's  return  to  his  own  country  (whether  Syria,  Phenicia,  Mesopota- 
mia, or  Assyria),  and  not  to  captivity  in  war  or  to  suffering  in  exile,  of 
which  there  is  no  intimation  in  the  text.  All  that  the  prophet  clearly  threat- 
ens Shehna  with,  is  the  loss  of  rank  and  influence  in  Judah  and  a  return  to 
his  own  country.  An  analogous  incident  in  modern  history  (so  far  as 
these  circumstances  are  concerned)  is  Necker's  retreat  from  France  to 
Switzerland  at  the  beginning  of  the  French  Revolution. 

V.  19.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day  that  I  will  call  for  my 
servant,  for  Eliakim  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  i.  e.  will  personally  designate 
him.  Eliakim  appears  again  in  ch.  36 :  3,  and  there  as  here  in  connexion 
with  Shebna.  There  is  probably  no  ground  for  the  rabbinical  tradition  that 
Eliakim  is  identical  with  Azariah  mentioned  2  Chr.  31 :  13  as  the  ruler 
of  the  house  of  God.  The  epithet  my  servant  seems  to  be  intended  to 
describe  him  as  a  faithful  follower  of  Jehovah,  and  as  such  to  contrast  him  with 
Shebna  who  may  have  been  a  heathen.  The  employment  of  such  a  man 
by  such  a  king  as  Hezekiah  is  explained  by  some  upon  the  supposition  that 
he  had  been  promoted  by  Ahaz  and  then  suffered  to  remain  by  his  suc- 
cessor. It  is  just  as  easy  to  suppose  however  that  he  had  raised  himself  by 
his  abilities  for  public  business. 

V.  20.  And  I  will  thrust  thee  from  thy  post,  and  from  thy  station 
shall  he  pull  thee  down.  The  verb  in  the  last  clause  is  indefinite  and  really 
equivalent  to  a  passive  (thou  shalt  be  pulled  down).  It  should  not  there- 
fore be  translated  in  the  first  person  as  a  mere  enallage,  nor  made  to  agree 
with  Jehovah  understood,  which  would  be  a  very  harsh  construction,  and 
though  not  without  example  should  be  assumed  only  in  case  of  necessity. 

V.  21.  And  I  will  clothe  him  with  thy  dress,  and  with  thy  girdle  will  1 
strengthen  him,  and  thy  power  will  I  give  into  his  hand,  and  he  shall  be 
for  a  father  (or  become  a  father)  to  the  dweller  in  Jerusalem  and  to  the 
house  of  Judah.  We  may  either  suppose  a  reference  to  an  official  dress,  or 
a  metaphor  analogous  to  that  of  filling  another's  shoes  in  colloquial  English. 
The  Piel  of  P*n  may  simply  mean  to  bind  fast,  but  the  strict  sense  of 
strengthening  agrees  well  with  the  oriental  use  of  the  girdle  to  confine  the 
flowing  garments  and  to  fit  the  wearer  for  active  exertion.  Father  is  not  a 
mere  oriental  synonyme  of  ruler,  but  an  emphatic  designation  of  a  wise  and 
benevolent  ruler.  It  seems  therefore  to  imply  that  Shebna's  administration 
was  of  an  opposite  character.  The  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and  the  family 
of  Judah  comprehend  the  whole  nation. 

V.  22.  And  I  will  put  the  key  of  the  house  of  David  on  his  shoulder; 
he  shall  open  and  there  shall  be  no  one  shutting,  he  shall  shut  and  there 


400  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXII. 

shall  be  no  one  opening.  In  other  words,  he  shall  have  unlimited  control 
over  the  royal  house  and  household,  which  according  to  oriental  usages 
implies  a  high  political  authority.  Some  suppose  a  reference  to  the  actual 
bearing  of  the  key  by  the  royal  steward  or  chamberlain,  and  explain  its 
being  carried  on  the  shoulder  by  the  fact  that  large  wooden  locks  and  keys 
of  corresponding  size  are  still  used  in  some  countries,  the  latter  being  some- 
times curved  like  a  sickle  so  as  to  be  hung  around  the  neck.  Against  this 
explanation  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  phrase  house  of  David  seems  to 
imply  a  metaphorical  rather  than  a  literal  palace,  and  that  dstt)  does  not  mean 
the  shoulder  merely  but  includes  the  upper  part  of  the  back,  as  the  place  for 
bearing  burdens.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  9:3.  10 :  27.)  There  is  still  less  to  be 
said  in  favour  of  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  figure  of  a  key  embroidered  on 
the  dress.  The  best  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  that  the  government 
or  administration  is  here  represented  by  the  figure  of  a  burden,  not  merely 
in  the  general  as  in  ch.  9 :  5,  but  the  specific  burden  of  a  key,  chosen  in 
order  to  express  the  idea  of  control  over  the  royal  house,  which  was  the  title 
of  the  office  in  question.  The  application  of  the  same  terms  to  Peter 
(Matt.  16:  19)  and  to  Christ  himself  (Rev.  3:  7)  does  not  prove  that 
they  here  refer  to  either,  or  that  Eliakim  was  a  type  of  Christ,  but  merely 
that  the  same  words  admit  of  different  applications. 

V.  23.  And  1  will  fasten  him  a  nail  in  a  sure  place,  and  he  shall 
be  for  a  throne  of  glory  to  his  father's  house.  The  figure  in  the  first 
clause  naturally  conveys  the  idea  of  security  and  permanence.  The  refer- 
ence is  not  to  the  stakes  or  centre  post  of  a  tent,  but  to  the  large  pegs,  pins 
or  nails  often  built  into  the  walls  of  oriental  houses  for  the  purpose  of  sus- 
pending clothes  or  vessels.  The  last  clause  is  obscure.  Some  suppose  the 
figure  of  a  pin  or  peg  to  be  still  continued,  and  that  it  is  here  represented  as 
so  large  that  men  may  sit  upon  it.  Others  suppose  the  nail  to  be  here 
described  as  fastened  in  a  throne :  it  shall  be  (attached)  to  the  glorious 
throne  of  his  father's  house.  This  would  seem  to  warrant  Calvin's  suppo- 
sition that  Eliakim  was  of  the  blood  royal.  But  such  a  construction,  if  not 
wholly  ungrammatical,  is  very  forced,  and  aw  is  the  Hebrew  name  for  any 
seat  (answering  to  stool  or  chair),  and  denotes  a  throne  or  chair  of  state 
only  as  being  a  seat  par  eminence.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of  the 
words,  and  that  most  commonly  adopted,  is  that  the  figure  of  a  nail  is  here 
exchanged  for  that  of  a  seat,  this  being  common  to  the  two,  that  they  alike 
suggest  the  idea  of  support  though  in  different  ways.  Those  whom  Eliakim 
was  the  means  of  promoting  might  be  said,  with  a  change  of  figure  but 
without  a  change  of  meaning,  both  to  sit  and  hang  upon  him.  He  was  to 
be  not  only  a  seat  but  a  seat  of  honour,  which  is  nearer  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew  phrase  than  throne  of  glory. 


1SA1AII,   < '  11  A  1>.   XXII.  401 

V.  24.  And  thnj  shall  hakg  upon  him  all  the  honour  of  his  fat  heft 
house—the  offspring  and  (he  issue—all  vessels  of  small  ip/a/t/ity—from 
vessels  of  cups  even  to  all  vessels  ofjlagons.  Here  the  figure  of  a  nail  is 
resumed.  The  dependents  of  Eliakim  are  represented  as  suspended  on  him 
as  their  sole  support,  n^xsxs  and  msDX  are  expressions  borrowed  from  the 
vegetable  world.  Henderson  imitates  the  form  of  the  original  by  rendering 
them  offspring  and  offset.  It  is  commonly  assumed  by  interpreters  that  the 
two  words  are  in  antithesis,  denoting  either  different  sexes  (sons  and  daugh- 
ters), or  different  generations  (sons  and  grandsons),  or  different  ranks,  which 
last  is  the  usual  explanation,  and  derives  some  countenance  from  the 
etymology  of  nrss  and  the  analogy  of  Ezek.  4:15.  The  next  phrase  is  de- 
signed to  show  that  even  the  least  are  not  to  be  excepted.  In  the  last  clause 
mass  and  o^bsa  may  either  be  taken  as  equivalent  expressions  or  as  contrast- 
ing the  gold  and  silver  vessels  of  the  altar  (Ex.  24  :  6)  with  common  earthen 
utensils  (Jer.  48:  12.  Lam.  4  :  2).  The  old  interpretation  ofa^b^as 
denoting  musical  instruments,  though  justified  by  usage,  is  forbidden  by  the 
context.  The  Targum  explicitly  applies  the  clause  to  the  Priests  who 
served  the  altar,  and  the  Levites  who  conducted  the  music  of  the  temple.  This 
explanation  is  connected  with  that  of  rnn  in  v.  1  as  denoting  the  temple  or 
the  house  of  God. 

V.  25.  In  that  day,  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  shall  the  nail  fastened  in 
a  sure  place  be  removed,  and  be  cut  down,  and  fall,  and  the  burden  which 
was  on  it  shall  be  cut  off ,  for  Jehovah  speaks.  The  most  natural  and  ob- 
vious application  of  these  words  is  to  Eliakim,  who  had  just  been  represented 
as  a  nail  in  a  sure  place.  But  as  this  would  predict  his  fall,  without  the  slight- 
est intimation  of  the  reason,  and  in  seeming  contradiction  to  the  previous 
context,  most  interpreters  reject  this  exposition  as  untenable.  Hitzig  indeed 
maintains  that  this  is  the  only  meaning  which  the  words  will  bear,  but  assumes 
that  these  two  verses  were  added  at  a  later  date,  shortly  before  or  after  Elia- 
kim's  own  disgrace.  Hendewerk  adopts  the  same  hypothesis  but  applies  it 
to  the  last  verse  only.  J.  H.  Michaelis  alone  gives  a  favourable  meaning  to 
the  figures  of  v.  25,  as  signifying  that  Eliakim  should  die  in  peace,  to  the 
irreparable  loss  of  Judah  and  of  his  own  dependents  in  particular.  Another 
exegetical  expedient  is  to  apply  even  v.  23  to  Shebna,  not  as  a  promise  of 
what  God  would  do,  but  as  a  narrative  of  what  he  had  done.  The  obvious 
objections  are,  that  the  verbs  in  that  verse  are  as  certainly  future  as  those  in 
the  one  before  it ;  and  that  both  verses  must  be  referred  to  the  same  subject, 
unless  the  supposition  of  a  change  be  absolutely  necessary.  Such  a  necessity 
does  seem  to  exist  in  v.  25,  and  is  the  more  easily  assumed  because  the 
grammatical  objection  is  not  applicable  there.  Most  writers,  therefore,  seem 
to  be  agreed,  that  the  twenty-fifth  verse  relates  to  Shebna,  and  that  the 

26 


402  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII. 

Prophet,  after  likening  Eliakim  to  a  nail  fastened  in  a  sure  place,  tacitly  ap- 
plies the  same  comparison  to  Shebna,  and  declares  that  the  nail  which  now 
seems  to  be  securely  fastened  shall  soon  yield  to  make  way  for  the  other. 
Those  who  refer  the  verse  to  Eliakim  suppose  his  fall  to  have  been  occasion- 
ed by  his  nepotism  or  excessive  patronage  of  his  relations,  a  conjectural  in- 
ference from  v.  24.  The  partial  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  is  commonly  sup- 
posed to  be  recorded  in  ch.  36  :  3,  where  Eliakim  actually  fills  the  place  here 
promised  to  him,  and  Shebna  appears  in  the  inferior  character  of  a  scribe  or 
secretary.  Some  indeed  suppose  two  persons  of  the  name  of  Shebna,  which 
is  not  only  arbitrary  in  itself,  but  rendered  more  improbable  by  this  considera- 
tion, that  Shebna  is  probably  a  foreign  name  and  certainly  occurs  only  in  these 
and  the  parallel  places,  whereas  Hilkiah  is  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  yet  is 
admitted  upon  all  hands  to  denote  the  same  person.  It  seems  improbable 
no  doubt  that  Shebna,  after  such  a  threatening,  should  be  transferred  to 
another  office.  But  the  threatening  may  not  have  been  public,  and  the 
transfer  may  have  been  merely  the  beginning  of  his  degradation.  But  even 
supposing  that  the  Shebna  of  ch.  36 :  2  is  a  different  person,  and  that  the 
execution  of  this  judgment  is  nowhere  explicitly  recorded,  there  is  no  need 
of  concluding  that  it  was  revoked  or  that  it  was  meant  to  be  conditional,  much 
less  that  it  was  falsified  by  the  event.  It  is  a  common  usage  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  of  this  book  in  particular,  to  record  a  divine  command  and  not  its 
execution,  leaving  the  latter  to  be  inferred  from  the  former  as  a  matter  of 
course.  Of  this  we  have  had  repeated  examples,  such  as  ch.  7  :  4  and  8  :  1. 
Nay  in  this  very  case,  we  are  merely  told  what  Isaiah  was  commanded  to 
say  to  Shebna,  without  being  told  that  he  obeyed  the  order.  If  the  execu- 
tion of  this  order  may  be  taken  for  granted,  so  may  the  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
phecy. If  it  had  failed,  it  would  not  have  been  recorded  or  preserved  among 
the  prophecies. 


CHAPTER  XXIIL 


This  prophecy  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  predicts  the  fall  of 
Tyre,  vs.  1-14.  The  second  promises  its  restoration  and  conversion,  vs. 
15-18.  The  fall  of  Tyre  is  predicted,  not  directly,  but  in  the  form  of  apos- 
trophes, addressed  to  her  own  people  or  her  colonies,  vs.  1-7.  The  destruc- 
tion is  referred  to  God  as  its  author,  and  to  the  Chaldees  as  his  instruments, 
vs.  8-14.  The  prediction  in  the  latter  part  includes  three  events.  Tyre 
shall  be  forsaken  and  forgotten  for  seventy  years,  v.  15.     She  shall  then  be 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII.  403 

restored  to  her  former  activity  and  wealth,  vs.  16,  17.     Thenceforth  her 
gains  shall  be  devoted  to  the  Lord,  v.  1 8. 

Tyre,  one  of  the  chief  cities  of  Phenicia,  was  situated  partly  on  a  rocky 
island  near  the  coast,  and  partly  in  a  wide  and  fertile  plain  upon  the  coast 
itself.  It  was  long  a  current  opinion  that  the  insular  Tyre  had  no  existence 
before  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar  ;  but  Hengstenberg  has  made  it  probable 
that  from  the  beginning  the  chief  part  of  the  city  was  situated  on  the  island, 
or  rather  a  peninsula  connected  with  the  mainland  by  a  narrow  isthmus. 
(See  his  elaborate  and  masterly  tract,  De  Rebus  Tyriorum,  Berlin,  1832.) 
The  name  Palaetyrus  (Old  Tyre),  given  by  the  ancient  writers  to  the  con- 
tinental city,  he  supposes  to  have  come  into  use  after  that  part  of  Tyre  was 
destroyed  and  while  the  other  was  still  standing.  Tyre  is  remarkable  in 
history  for  two  things  ;  its  maritime  trade,  and  the  many  sieges  it  has  under- 
gone. The  first  of  these  on  record  was  by  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria, 
who  according  to  Menander,  a  historian  now  lost  but  quoted  by  Josephus, 
blockaded  Tyre  for  five  years,  so  as  to  cut  off  the  supply  cf  water  from  the 
mainland,  but  without  being  able  to  reduce  the  city.  The  next  was  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  who  besieged  it  thirteen  years ;  with 
what  result,  is  not  expressly  mentioned  either  in  profane  or  sacred  history. 
A  third  siege  was  by  Alexander  the  Great,  who  after  seven  months  and 
with  the  utmost  difficulty  finally  reduced  it.  It  was  afterwards  besieged  by 
the  Syrian  king  Antigonus,  and  more  than  once  during  the  Crusades,  both 
by  Franks  and  Saracens.  After  this  period  it  entirely  decayed,  and  has 
now  disappeared,  its  site  being  marked  by  the  insulated  rock,  by  the  cause- 
way between  it  and  the  mainland  still  existing  as  a  bar  of  sand,  and  by  col- 
umns and  other  architectural  remains  mostly  lying  under  water. 

It  has  been  much  disputed  which  of  these  events  is  the  subject  of  the 
prophecy  before  us.  Grotius,  as  usual,  sees  the  fulfilment  in  the  days  of 
Isaiah  himself,  and  refers  the  prediction  to  the  siege  by  Shalmaneser.  Cle- 
ricus  gives  it  a  wider  scope,  and  seems  to  make  the  siege  by  Alexander  its 
main  subject.  But  the  great  body  of  the  older  writers  refer  it  to  an  inter- 
mediate event,  the  siege  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  arguments  in  favour  of 
this  application  are  stated  with  great  learning,  force,  and  clearness,  by  Vi- 
tringa  on  the  passage. 

The  German  writers  of  the  new  school  are  divided  on  this  question. 
Eichhorn,  Rosenmuller,  Hitzig,  and  others,  admit  the  reference  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, but  ascribe  the  prophecy  of  course  to  a  contemporary  writer. 
Gesenius,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  admit  its  genuineness,  but  refer  it 
to  the  siege  by  Shalmaneser.  Hendewerk  also  admits  the  genuineness  of 
the  passage,  but  denies  its  having  reference  to  any  particular  historical  event. 
Ewald  refers  it  to  the  siege  by  Shalmaneser,  but  infers  from  the  inferiority 
of  the  style  that  it  may  be  the  production  of  a  younger  contemporary  and 


404  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII. 

disciple  of  Isaiah.  The  discussion  of  the  subject  by  these  writers  is  in  one 
respect  interesting  and  instructive.  In  most  other  cases  they  occupy  com- 
mon ground  against  the  truth.  But  here  they  are  reduced  to  a  dilemma, 
and  by  choosing  different  horns  of  it,  are  placed  in  opposition  to  each  other, 
clearly  betraying,  in  the  conflict  that  ensues,  the  real  value  of  their  favourite 
style  of  criticism.  Thus  while  Ewald  thinks  the  style  unlike  that  of  Isaiah, 
and  Eichhorn  and  Hitzig  see  the  clearest  indications  of  a  later  age,  Gesenius 
and  Hendewerk  are  struck  with  the  tokens  of  antiquity  and  with  the  charac- 
teristics of  Isaiah.  So  too  with  respect  to  the  literary  merit  of  the  passage, 
Hitzio*  treats  it  almost  with  contempt,  while  Hendewerk  extols  it  as  a  mas- 
terpiece of  eloquence.  There  could  not  be  a  stronger  illustration  of  the  fact, 
already  evident,  that  the  boasted  diagnosis  of  this  school  of  critics  is  always 
dependent  on  a  foregone  conclusion.  Had  there  been  no  siege  of  Tyre  in 
the  days  of  Isaiah,  Gesenius  would  easily  have  found  abundant  proofs  that 
the  chapter  was  of  later  date.  But  this  not  being  necessary  for  his  purpose 
here,  he  treats  as  inconclusive  even  stronger  proofs  than  those  which  he 
himself  employs  in  other  cases. 

To  the  reference  of  this  prophecy  to  Shalmaneser  there  are  two  main 
objections.     The  first  is  the  express  mention  of  the  Chaldees  in  v.  13. 
Ewald  easily  disposes  of  this  difficulty  by  reading  ti^sas  instead  of  tfWttS. 
Gesenius  and  the  rest  maintain  that  the  Chaldees  are  mentioned  only  as 
tributaries  or  auxiliaries  of  Assyria.     As  this,  though  arbitrarily  assumed,  is 
not  impossible,  the  first  objection  cannot  be  regarded  as  decisive.     The 
second  is  that  Shalmaneser's  attempt  upon  Tyre  was  perfectly  abortive. 
This  argument  of  course  has  no  effect  upon  Gesenius  and  others  who  deny 
the  inspiration  of  the  Prophet.     Even  such  however  must  admit  that  if  the 
descriptions  of  the  prophecy  were  actually  realized  in  another  case,  it  is  more 
likely  to  have  been  the  one  intended.     They  allege  however  that  the  very 
same  objection  lies  against  the  supposition  of  a  reference  to  Nebuchadnezzar, 
on  the  ground  that  no  historian,  sacred  or  profane,  records  the  fact  of  his 
having  taken  Tyre.     To  account  for  this  omission,  and  to  show  by  various 
incidental  proofs  that  the  event  did  nevertheless  happen,  is  the  main  design 
of  Hen gsten berg's  tract  already  mentioned,  in  which  he  has   performed 
his  task  with  a  rare  combination  of  minute  learning,  ingenuity,  and  good 
sense,  although  not  to  the   satisfaction  of  contemporary  German  writers. 
His  argument  from  the  nature  of  the  case  turns  in   a  great  measure  on 
minute  details,  and  sometimes  on  intricate  calculations  in  chronology.     It 
will  be  sufficient  therefore  to  record  the  result,  which  is  that  the  actual  con- 
quest of  Tyre  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  even  leaving  out  of  view  the  prophecy 
before  us,   and  the  more  explicit  one  in    Ezek.   ch.  26,  is  much  more 
probable  than  the  contrary  hypothesis.     But  there  is  still  another  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  applying  the  prophecy  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  siege  and  con- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII.  405 

quest.  Isaiah  intimates  and  Ezekiel  explicitly  foretells  an  entire  desolation 
of  Tyre,  which  did  not  take  place  till  the  middle  ages.  Hengsten berg's 
solution  of  this  difficulty  is,  that  the  prophets  constantly  connect  the  imme- 
diate consequences  of  the  events  which  they  predict  with  their  remoter  and 
more  gradual  results.  On  the  same  general  principle  of  interpretation,  but 
with  a  difference  of  form,  it  may  be  said  that  the  prophecy  before  us  is 
generic  not  specific,  a  panoramic  picture  of  the  downfall  of  Tyre,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  destroying  process,  with  particular  allusion  to 
particular  sieges,  as  for  instance  to  that  of  the  Chaldees  in  v.  13,  and  perhaps 
to  that  of  Alexander  in  v.  6.  Antiquarian  research  and  discovery  may  yet 
bring  to  light  coincidences  still  more  striking. 

While  the  great  majority  of  writers  understand  the  passage  as  referring 
to  the  literal  Tyre,  a  few  prefer  to  take  it  in  a  mystical  sense.  Some  of  the 
older  Jewish  writers  say  that  whenever  the  literal  Tyre  is  meant,  the  name 
is  fully  written  ("^2),  but  that  when  it  is  defectively  written,  as  it  is  here, 
(is)  it  signifies  Rome.  Abarbenel  refutes  this  dictum  by  showing  that  both 
forms,  occur  in  the  same  context,  but  himself  makes  Tyre  here  mean  Ven- 
ice. But  these  hypotheses  are  modest  in  comparison  with  that  of  Cocceius, 
who  understands  by  Tyre  the  Church  of  Rome,  by  Egypt  Germany,  by 
Chittim  Spain,  by  Tarshish  France,  by  Assyria  Turkey,  by  the  land  of  the 
Chaldees  Hungary,  and  by  the  whole  passage  a  chapter  from  the  history  of 
the  Reformation.  Of  such  interpretations  it  may  surely  be  said  without  undue 
severity  :  '  hariolationes  hae  sunt ;  sequamur  certa  ;  incerta  aequo  animo  ig- 
noremus ;  neque  etiam  hanc  prophetiam  cum  quibusdam  veterum  allegorice 
interpretabimur  nam  si  Scriptura  non  indicet  debere  nos  in  re  una  cernere 
imaginem  alterius,  etiamsi  res  diversae  a  Scriptura  explicatae  similitudinem 
et  conformitatem  aliquam  habeant,  non  possumus  tamen  asserere  hoc  illius 
typum  et  figuram  esse,  nisi  quatenus  ilia  conformitas  ex  Scripturarum  com- 
paratione  demonstratur.'  These  are  the  words  of  Cocceius  himself,  reprov- 
ing Grotius  for  his  groundless  hypothesis  of  Shebna's  leprosy  in  ch.  22,  and 
declaring  his  own  dissent  from  the  old  interpretations  of  that  chapter. 

V.  1.  The  burden  of  Tyre.  Howl,  ships  of  Tarshish,  for  it  is  laid 
waste — wo  house,  no  entrance — from  the  land  of  Chittim  it  is  revealed  to 
them.  Here,  as  inch.  13:  1.  15:  1.  17:  1.  19:  1.  21:  1,  11,  13.  22:  1, 
there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  rejecting  the  first  words  as  the  addition  of 
a  copyist  or  compiler.  The  command  or  exhortation  to  howl  implies  that 
those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  have  peculiar  cause  for  grief.  By  ships  of 
Tarshish  we  are  not  to  understand  merchant-ships  in  general,  but  strictly 
those  which  carried  on  the  trade  between  Phenicia  and  its  Spanish  colony 
Tartessus.  For  the  other  meanings  which  have  been  attached  to  ti^tta, 
vide  supra,  ch.  2:  15.     Rosenmuller  condemns  the  generic  explanation  of 


406  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII. 

the  phrase  as  unpoetical,  but  does  not  scruple  to  make  ships  mean  sailors, 
which  is  wholly  unnecessary.  The  masculine  form  Ttttf  may  either  be  re- 
ferred to  lis  by  a  common  license,  or  indefinitely  taken  to  mean  desolation 
has  been  wrought,  or  something  has  been  desolated,  without  saying  what. 
Ewald  resolves  it  into  an  indefinite  active  verb  (zerstort  hat  man)  without  a 
change  of  meaning.  The  preposition  in  n^^a  and  vtiihq  has  a  privative 
effect.  The  meaning  strictly  is,  away  from  house,  away  from  entrance.  It 
may  be  less  concisely  rendered,  so  that  there  is  no  house  etc.  Some  make 
the  two  expressions  strictly  parallel  and  correlative,  so  that  there  is  neither 
house  nor  entrance,  in  which  case  the  latter  may  have  reference  to  the  enter- 
ing of  ships  into  the  harbour.  Others  make  the  second  dependent  on  the 
first,  so  that  there  is  no  house  left  to  enter.  This  may  refer  particularly  to 
the  mariners  returning  from  their  long  voyage  and  finding  their  homes  de- 
stroyed. Chittim  is  neither  Macedonia  (Clericus),  Italy  (Vitringa),  Susiana 
(Bochart),  Cilicia  (Junius),  nor  a  region  in  Arabia  (Hensler),  but  the  island 
of  Cyprus  (Josephus),  in  which  there  was  a  city  Citium,  which  Cicero 
explicitly  refers  to  as  a  Phenician  settlement.  The  wider  explanation  of 
the  name  as  denoting  other  islands  or  the  Mediterranean  coasts  in  general, 
though  not  without  authority  from  usage,  is  uncertain  and  in  this  case  need- 
less. These  words  are  connected  with  what  goes  before  by  Calvin  (ut  non 
sit  commeatus  e  terra  Cittim)  and  others  ;  but  most  interpreters  adhere  to 
the  masoretic  interpunction.  It  is  revealed  (i.  e.  the  event  announced  in 
the  preceding  clause)  to  them  (the  Tyrian  mariners  on  their  way  home  from 
Tarshish).  The  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  the  news  of  the  fall  of  Tyre  has 
reached  the  Phenician  settlements  in  Cyprus,  and  through  them  the  Tyrian 
manners  that  touch  there. 

V.  2.  Be  silent  oh  inhabitants  of  the  isle  (or  coast),  the  merchants  of 
Sidon  crossing  the  sea  filed  thee.  This  may  either  be  addressed  to  the 
coasts  and  islands  of  the  Mediterranean  which  had  long  been  frequented  by 
the  Phenician  traders,  or  to  Phenicia  itself,  which  foreign  commerce  had 
enriched.  The  last  explanation  is  commonly  preferred  ;  but  the  first  is 
recommended  by  the  fact  that  it  assigns  a  reason  for  the  mention  of  the  for- 
eign trade  of  Sidon,  as  accounting  for  the  interest  which  other  nations  are 
supposed  to  feel  in  the  fall  of  Tyre.  On  either  supposition,  Sidon,  the 
other  great  city  of  Phenicia,  is  put  for  the  whole  country.  The  plural  verb 
in  the  last  clause  agrees  with  ">nb  as  a  collective. 

V.  3.  And  in  great  waters  (was)  the  seed  of  the  Nile;  the  harvest  of 
the  river  (ivas)  her  revenue  ;  and  she  was  a  mart  of  nations.  "M,  and  "iiK? 
are  the  Hebrew  and  Egyptian  names  of  the  Nile.  The  first,  according  to 
its  etymology,  means  black,  and  corresponds  to  Mt'lag  and  Melo,  Greek  and 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXIII.  407 

Latin  names  of  the  same  river,  all  derived  from  the  colour  of  the  water  or 
the  mud  which  it  deposits.  The  use  of  the  word  -Trie;  is  one  of  the  proofs, 
adduced  by  Eichhorn  and  Kosenniiilier,  that  the  chapter  is  of  later  date.  It 
is  true  the  name  occurs  in  Josh.  IS  :  13;  but  that  is  also  classed  among  the 
later  books.  Gesenius  observes  however  that  an  inference  can  hardly  be 
drawn  from  one  or  two  examples.  Of  the  whole  verse  there  are  three  inter- 
pretations. The  first  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that  the  grain  of  Egypt 
was  exported  in  Phenician  vessels  on  the  great  waters  i.  e.  over  the  sea. 
The  objection  that  Phenicia  is  described  by  Ezekiel  as  trading  not  with  Egypt 
but  with  Palestine  in  grain,  though  entitled  to  some  weight,  is  not  conclusive. 
A  stronger  objection  may  be  drawn  from  the  apparent  incongruity  of  naming 
this  one  branch  of  commerce  as  a  proof  that  Tyre  was  a  mart  of  nations. 
A  second  interpretation  understands  what  is  said  of  Egypt  figuratively,  or 
as  a  comparison  ;  as  if  he  had  said  that  the  wealth  which  Egypt  derived  from 
the  Nile,  Phenicia  derived  from  the  great  waters  i.  e.  by  her  maritime  trade. 
The  third  differs  from  this  only  by  supposing  a  distinct  allusion  to  the  insu- 
lar situation  of  Tyre,  which,  though  planted  on  a  rock  and  girt  by  mighty 
waters,  reaped  as  rich  a  harvest  as  the  fertile  land  of  Egypt.  This  last 
interpretation,  which  is  that  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Hengstenberg,  is  much 
more  poetical  than  either  of  the  others,  and  at  least  in  that  respect  entitled 
to  the  preference. 

V.  4.  Be  ashamed  (or  confounded)  Zidon,  for  the  sea  saith,  the  strength 
of  the  sea,  saying,  I  have  not  travailed,  and  I  have  not  borne,  and  I  have 
not  reared  young  men  (or)  brought  up  virgins.  One  of  the  great  cities  of 
Phenicia  is  here  called  upon  to  be  confounded  at  the  desolation  of  the  other ; 
or  Zidon  may  be  put  for  the  whole  country,  as  in  the  preceding  verse.  The 
Targum  gives  to  c^  its  geographical  sense  of  west  (amr^).  Some  writers 
understand  the  sea  itself  as  the  ideal  speaker,  and  explain  rfcrn  as  an  allusion 
to  the  turret-like  appearance  of  the  waves  when  in  commotion.  The  correct 
view  of  the  case  seems  to  be  this.  The  Prophet  hears  a  voice  from  the  sea, 
which  he  then  describes  more  exactly  as  coming  from  the  stronghold  or 
fortress  of  the  sea,  i.  e.  insular  Tyre  as  viewed  from  the  mainland.  The 
rest  of  the  verse  is  intended  to  express  the  idea  that  the  city  thus  personified 
was  childless,  was  as  if  she  had  never  borne  children.  Here,  as  in  chap. 
I  :  2,  Hendewerk  takes  "wari-i  in  the  sense  of  exalting,  making  great,  which 
is  at  once  a  violation  of  usage  and  of  the  Prophet's  metaphor.  Interpreters 
are  commonly  agreed  that  the  negative  force  of  the  last  aib  extends  to  both 
the  following  verbs.  Cocceius  alone  seems  to  make  the  last  clause  affirma- 
tive (non  educavi  juvenes  ;  extuli  vir^ines)  as  if  she  were  complaining  that 
she  had  not  borne  sons  but  daughters.  But  the  whole  metaphor  is  clearly 
intended  to  express  the  idea  of  depopulation. 


408 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXIII 


V.  5.  When  the  report  (comes)  to  Egypt,  they  are  pained  at  the  report 
of  Tyre.  There  are  three  distinct  interpretations  of  this  verse.  ,  The  first 
refers  tifrfln  to  the  Sidonians  or  Phenicians  generally,  and  understands  the 
verse  to  mean  that  they  would  be  as  much  grieved  to  hear  of  the  fall  of 
Tyre  as  if  they  should  hear  of  that  of  Egypt.  The  second  makes  the  verb 
indefinite,  or  understands  it  of  the  nations  generally,  who  are  then  said  to  be 
as  much  astounded  at  the  fall  of  Tyre  as  they  once  were  at  the  judgments 
of  Jehovah  upon  Egypt.  The  third,  which  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopt- 
ed, makes  Egypt  itself  or  the  Egyptians  the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  explains 
3  and  iujjo  as  particles  of  time,  not  of  comparison.  The  first  of  these  senses 
is  expressed  by  Vitringa  (utfama  de  Egypto  commoveret  animos,  sic  dole- 
bunt  ad  /amain  Tyri),  the  second  by  Luther  (gleichwie  man  erschrak  da 
man  von  Egypten  horete,  also  wird  man  erschrecken  wenn  man  von  Tyrus 
horen  wird),  the  third  by  the  Vulgate  (cum  auditum  fuerit  in  Egypto  dole- 
bunt  cum  audient  de  Tyro).  This  last  supposes  the  Egyptians  to  lament 
for  the  loss  of  their  great  mart  and  commercial  ally.  The  idea  expressed 
by  the  second  construction  is  a  much  more  elevated  one,  and  it  seems  more 
agreeable  to  usage  to  take  a  before  a  noun  as  a  particle  of  comparison. 
(Vide  supra,  ch.  18:  4.)  TOK2  equally  admits  of  either  explanation. 
Either  of  these  interpretations  appears  preferable  to  the  first,  which  yields 
an  unnatural  and  inappropriate  sense. 

V.  6.  Pass  over  to  Tarshish  ;  howl,  ye  inhabitants  of  the  isle  (or  coast). 
The  mother  country  is  exhorted  to  take  refuge  in  her  distant  colonies. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  compares  the  resolution  of  the  Dutch  merchants  in  1672  to 
remove  to  Batavia  if  the  mother  country  could  not  be  delivered.  According 
to  Diodorus,  Curtius,  and  Justin,  the  Tyrians,  when  besieged  by  Alexander, 
sent  their  old  men,  women  and  children,  to  Carthage.  Aben  Ezra  gra- 
tuitously makes  "W  a  collective,  and  supposes  the  address  to  be  to  all  the 
islands  where  the  Tyrians  traded. 

V.  7.  Is  this  your  joyous  city  (literally,  is  this  to  you  a  joyous  one)  ? 
from  the  days  of  old  is  her  antiquity ;  her  feet  shall  carry  her  afar  off  to 
sojourn.  Some  adopt  a  relative  construction,  and  continue  the  interrogation 
through  the  verse  ;  whose  feet  etc.  Of  those  who  read  the  sentence  thus, 
some  understand  the  last  clause  as  descriptive  of  the  colonial  and  commer- 
cial activity  of  Tyre.  But  this  requires  n^i"1  to  be  arbitrarily  explained  as 
a  preterite.  Most  writers  understand  the  clause  as  applying,  either  to  the 
flight  of  the  Tyrians  to  their  colonies,  or  to  their  being  carried  into  exile. 
To  the  first,  Gesenius  objects  that  they  could  not  cross  the  sea  on  foot. 
Umbreit  replies  that  they  must  have  feet  to  go  on  board  the  ships.  Knobel 
rejoins  that  in  that  case  it  would  not  be  their  feet  that  carried  them  far 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII.  409 

off.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  either,  that  a  city  can  no  more 
cross  the  sea  in  ships  than  dry-shod  ;  that  the  verse  contains  a  bold  personi- 
fication ;  and  that  having  once  converted  Tyre  into  a  woman,  the  writer  may 
naturally  represent  her  as  going  any  where  on  foot,  without  respect  to  the 
actual  method  of  conveyance  used  by  individual  emigrants.  Grotius  avoids 
the  difficulty  mentioned  by  Gesenius,  by  making  feet  mean  sails  and  oars. 
The  epithet  ripr?  has  reference  to  the  bustle  of  commerical  enterprise  and  also 
to  the  luxury  and  pride  of  Tyre.  Hendewerk  refers  to  the  use  of  this  word 
in  ch.  22 :  2,  as  an  incidental  proof  that  Isaiah  wrote  both  chapters.  The 
resemblance  between  rro'Jg  and  cnp  is  imitated  by  Gesenius  in  his  version 
(Ursprung  and  Urzeit).  These  expressions  may  be  referred  either  to  the 
real  antiquity  of  Tyre,  or  to  the  exaggerated  boastings  of  the  Tyrians,  of 
which  we  have  examples  in  Herodotus  and  other  profane  writers. 

V.  8.  Who  hath  purposed  this  against  Tyre  the  crowning  (city),  whose 
merchants  (are)  princes,  her  traffickers  the  honoured  of  the  earth  1  The 
Vulgate  gives  ttvwna  a  passive  sense  (quondam  coronatam),  which  Sanctius 
applies  to  the  pinnacles  and  turrets  of  the  city.  Hitzig  makes  it  mean  the 
crown-wearer.  Most  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  it  denotes  the  crowner 
or  crown-giver,  in  allusion  to  the  fact  that  crowned  heads  were  among  the 
tributaries  of  Phenicia,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  historians. 
Gesenius  refers  to  the  oriental  crowns  dispensed  by  the  East  India  Com- 
pany, and  to  the  crown  of  Corsica  once  subject  to  the  Genoese  Republic. 
He  also  illustrates  the  use  of  the  name  Canaan  to  denote  a  trader,  by  the 
analogous  usage  of  Chaldean  for  astrologer,  and  that  of  Swiss,  Savoyard,  Jew, 
in  modern  parlance,  to  denote  certain  callings  or  professions.  The  question 
in  this  verse  implies  that  no  ordinary  power  could  have  done  it.  The  sense 
of  rich  which  Gesenius  gives  to  TOM  in  this  place  is  entirely  arbitrary. 
That  of  land,  which  some  writers  put  instead  of  earth,  though  it  does  not 
change  the  sense  of  the  expression,  weakens  it. 

V.  9.  Jehovah  of  Hosts  hath  purposed  it,  to  profane  the  elevation  of 
all  beauty,  to  degrade  all  the  honoured  of  the  earth.  This  is  the  answer  to 
the  question  in  v.  8.  The  suffix  in  nss^  refers  to  txt.  The  supposition  of 
a  chorus,  or  of  choruses  responding  to  each  other,  is  gratuitous  and  artificial, 
and  better  suited  to  a  Greek  play  than  a  Hebrew  prophecy.  Not  only  in 
poetry,  but  in  animated  prose,  the  writers  of  all  languages  ask  questions  to  be 
answered  by  themselves,  ^s  includes  all  that  was  splendid  and  beautiful 
in  Tyre.  The  exclusive  reference  of  the  word  to  the  people  can  be  justified 
by  nothing  but  the  parallelism,  and  even  that  will  admit  of  an  antithesis  be- 
tween an  abstract  and  a  concrete  term,  ^n  means  strictly  to  profane  or  dese- 
crate that  which   is  reckoned  holy,  but  is  here  used  to  express  the  making 


410  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XX11I. 

common  of  that  which  was  distinguished  by  magnificence  or  beauty.  The 
force  of  the  antithesis  between  bpn  and  D*T3M  cannot  be  fully  expressed  in 
a  translation,  as  the  roots  respectively  mean  light  and  heavy.  They  are 
also  contrasted,  but  in  a  different  application  and  connexion,  in  ch.  8  :  23. 

V.  10.  Pass  through  thy  land  like  the  river  (Nile)  ;  Daughter  of 
Tarshish,  there  is  no  girdle  (any)  longer.  Some  read,  pass  over  to  thy  land, 
and  make  the  verse  an  exhortation  to  the  strangers  from  Tartessus  to  go 
home.  Others  understand  "WS  to  mean  as  (one  would  cross)  the  Nile  or 
any  other  stream,  i.  e.  naked,  or  without  a  girdle,  as  in  the  other  clause.  It 
is  commonly  agreed,  however,  that  the  phrase  means,  as  the  Nile  passes, 
i.  e.  quickly  or  without  restraint.  Some  suppose  the  figure  to  be  still  con- 
tinued in  the  last  clause,  and  take  nta  in  the  sense  of  a  dam,  mound,  or  em- 
bankment. Others,  giving  it  its  proper  sense  of  girdle,  apply  it  to  the  for- 
tifications of  Tyre  which  were  now  dismantled.  The  daughter  of  Tarshish 
is  not  Tyre,  or  Phenicia  now  considered  as  dependent  on  her  colonies  ;  nor 
the  population  of  Tarshish  ;  but  Tarshish  itself.  There  is  no  more  girdle 
may  be  taken  in  opposite  senses,  as  denoting  the  failure  of  strength  and  gen- 
eral dissolution,  or  the  absence  of  restraint  and  freedom  from  oppression. 
The  former  is  preferred  by  Hengstenberg  ;  but  it  does  not  seem  appropriate  to 
Tarshish,  though  it  might  be  so  if  addressed  to  the  mother  country. 

V.  11.  His  hand  he  stretched  out  over  the  sea;  he  made  kingdoms 
tremble  ;  Jehovah  commanded  respecting  Canaan  to  destroy  her  strongholds. 
The  subject  of  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  is  the  same  as  in  the  last.  The 
stretching  out  of  God's  hand,  followed  by  the  trembling  of  the  earth  or  its 
inhabitants,  is  urged  by  Hendewerk  as  a  favourite  expression  of  Isaiah  (see 
particularly  ch.  5:  25).  Eichhorn  and  Rosenmiiller,  on  the  other  hand, 
make  s-nitsa  a  Chaldaism  and  a  proof  of  later  origin.  Gesenius  denies  that 
there  is  any  thing  analogous  in  Chaldee  or  Syriac  usage,  and  regards  it  as 
either  an  anomalous  case  of  epenthesis  or  an  orthographical  error.  The 
feminine  suffix  at  the  end  refers  to  Canaan  as  the  name  of  a  country. 

V.  12.  And  he  said,  Thou  shalt  not  add  longer  (or  continue)  to  tri- 
umph, oppressed  (or  violated)  virgin  daughter  of  Zidon ;  to  Chittim  arise, 
pass  over ;  there  also  there  shall  be  no  rest  to  thee.  The  address  is  not  to 
Chittim  (or  the  Macedonians)  ;  nor  to  Tyre  as  a  daughter  of  the  older  city  ; 
but  to  Zidon  itself.  The  fact  that  rtona  is  in  apposition  with  ra  (as  to 
sense)  makes  it  altogether  probable  that  ra  sustains  the  same  relation  to  yN*»*. 
The  reading  "ji^s  re,  though  found  in  sixteen  manuscripts  and  several  ancient 
versions,  is  probably  a  mere  mistake,  arising  from  the  frequent  occurrence  of 
the  combination  elsewhere.     Zidon  is  here  put  for  Phenicia  in   general. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII.  411 


-•:?  is  impersonal.  This  exhortation  corresponds  exactly  to  the  one  in  v. 
6,  Tarshish  and  Chittim  being  both  Phenician  colonies.  The  last  clause 
implies,  either  that  the  colonists  would  not  receive  them,  or  that  the  enemy 
would  still  pursue  them,  probably  the  latter.  The  figure  of  a  violated  vir- 
gin, for  a  conquered  city  or  country,  is  alleged  by  Eichhorn  as  a  proof  of 
later  origin ;  but  it  is  used  by  the  contemporary  prophet  Nahum  (3  :  5), 
and  as  Knobel  observes,  occurs  nowhere  else  in  Isaiah  because  he  nowhere 
has  occasion  to  employ  it. 

V.  13.    Behold  the  land  of  the   Chaldees ;    this  people    was    not; 
Assyria  founded  it  for  dwellers  in   the  wilderness ;  they  have  set  up  his 
towers  ;  they  have  roused  up  her  palaces  ;  he  has  put  it  for  (or  rendered  it) 
a  ruin.     This  difficult  verse  has  been  very   variously  understood.     Some 
apply  it  exclusively  to  the  destruction  of  Tyre  by  the  Assyrians ;  but  this 
can  only  be  effected   by  an  arbitrary  change  of  text.     Thus  J.  Olshausen 
(in  his  emendations  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament)  omits  the  words  from 
•px  to  *ttBH  as  a  gloss,  changes  d^x  into  &"ns,  and  explains  the  rest  to  mean 
that  Assyria  converted  Tyre  into  a  heap  of  ruins.     The  origin  of  the  gloss 
he  supposes  to  be  this,  that  some  one  wrote  upon  the  margin  by  way  of  cor- 
rection, ninira  -px,  meaning  that  it  was  not  Assyria  but  Babylonia  that  de- 
stroyed Tyre,  and  then  added  more  explicitly,  hti  xb  c;n  J-it,  all  which  after- 
wards  found   its  way  into  the  text.     This  piece  of  criticism  is  too  extrava- 
gant even  for  the  Germans,  who  accordingly  reject  it  with  contempt.     Ew- 
ald,  however,  also  tampers  with  the  text  by  reading  D^rss  for  errs.     His 
version  of  the  whole  is  :   '  behold  the  land  of  the  Canaanites  (i.  e.  Phenicia)  ; 
this  nation  is  no  more  ;   Assyria  has  converted  it  into  a  wilderness  ;  they  (the 
Phenicians)  set  up  their  towers  (and)  built  their  palaces ;  he  (the  Assyrian) 
has  turned  it  to  a  ruin.'  Besides  the  arbitrary  change  of  text,  this  explanation 
gives  to   t^x  and  W9  senses  which  cannot  be  sustained  by  usage.     The 
great  majority,  both  of  the  older  and  the  later  writers,  leave  the  text  unalter- 
ed, and  suppose  that  the  Prophet  here  brings  the  Chaldees  into  view  as  the 
instruments  of  Tyre's  destruction.     The  words  from  hi  to  t^xb  will  then  be 
a  parenthesis,  containing  an  allusion  to  a  historical   fact  not  expressly  men- 
tioned elsewhere,  but  agreeing  well  with  other  facts  of  history,  viz.  that  the 
Chaldees  were  not  the  aboriginal  inhabitants  of  Babylonia,  but  were  brought 
thither  from  the  mountains  of  Armenia  or  Kurdistan  by  the  Assyrians  in  the 
days  of  their  supremacy.    This  accounts  for  the  fact,  that  Xenophon  speaks 
of  the  Chaldees   as  northern  mountaineers,  while  in  the  sacred  history  we 
find  them  in  possession  of  the  great  plain  of  Shinar.     The  former  statement 
has  respect,  no  doubt,  to  that  portion  of  the  people  who  were  left  behind  in 
their  original  territory.     This  incidental  statement,  it  may  also  be  observed, 
is  in  strict   accordance  with  the  Assyrian  policy  of  peopling  their  own  pro- 


412  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXIII. 


vinces  with  conquered  nations.  The  construction  commonly  adopted,  by 
interpreters  who  thus  explain  the  sentence,  is  as  follows.  '  Behold  the  land  of 
the  Chaldees ;  this  people  (the  people  now  inhabiting  it)  was  not  (i.  e.  had 
no  existence  until  lately)  ;  Assyria  founded  (or  established)  it  (the  coun- 
try) for  dwellers  in  the  wilderness  (i.  e.  for  the  Chaldees  who  before  had 
led  a  wild  nomadic  life).'  To  this  construction  Knobel,  though  he  acquiesces 
in  the  exposition  as  a  whole,  makes  two  objections ;  first,  that  while  it  ex- 
plains "pa  as  denoting  the  people,  it  refers  the  suffix  in  smo^  to  the  country ; 
secondly,  that  D*wx  is  really  descriptive  of  the  Chaldees,  not  before  but  after 
their  transportation  to  the  plains  of  Babylonia.  Knobel  himself  refers  both  "pa 
and  the  suffix  to  the  people  considered  as  possessors  of  the  land,  and  takes 
h  i&i  in  the  sense  of  appointing,  constituting,  as  in  Hab.  1  :  12.  '  Behold 
the  nation  of  the  Chaldees  ;  this  people  was  not  (i.  e.  was  unknown)  till 
Assyria  changed  them  into  inhabitants  of  the  wilderness  (or  plain).' — -But 
why  should  this  fact  in  the  history  of  the  Chaldees  be  referred  to  here  ?  The 
answer  usually  given  to  this  question  is,  because  the  recent  origin  and  present 
insignificance  of  the  chosen  instruments  made  the  conquest  more  humiliating 
to  the  Tyrians.  A  kindred  feeling  would  have  been  excited  in  the  ancient 
Romans  by  a  prediction  of  their  subjugation  and  destruction  by  the  Goths. 
If  the  reason  assigned  for  the  incidental  mention  of  the  Chaldee  migration  be 
the  true  one,  it  has  evidently  far  more  force  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
prophecy  relates  to  the  Babylonian  conquest  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  than 
upon  the  supposition  that  it  relates  to  the  attack  of  Shalmaneser.  Indeed 
the  whole  assumption,  that  the  Chaldees  are  here  mentioned  as  auxiliaries 
only,  is  so  perfectly  arbitrary,  that  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  any  writer, 
who  had  not  determined  upon  other  grounds,  that  the  event  predicted  took 
place  under  the  Assyrian  domination.  Even  Umbreit,  who  assents  to  this 
hypothesis,  admits  that  it  is  only  probable,  not  certain,  and  that  this  verse 
taken  by  itself  would  rather  prove  the  contrary,  by  mentioning  the  Chaldees 
as  the  principal  assailants,  and  Assyria  only  in  a  parenthesis  containing  a 
historical  allusion.  According  to  the  usual  interpretation  which  has  now 
been  given,  the  toivers  mentioned  are  those  used  in  ancient  sieges  ;  the  mas- 
culine suffix  refers  to  cs ;  the  feminine  suffix  to  Tyre ;  and  Tito  may  be 
taken  either  in  the  sense  of  raising  (from  "Vis),  or  in  that  of  rousing  (from 
*rts),  that  is,  filling  with  confusion  and  alarm.  Besides  the  interpretations 
which  have  now  been  given,  there  is  another  that  deserves  at  least  to  be  re- 
corded. Schleyer,  a  recent  German  writer  on  this  prophecy  and  that  against 
Babylon  in  ch.  xm,  xiv,  gives  the  same  sense  to  the  words  from  nt  to 
niW*  that  is  put  upon  them  by  Olshausen,  but  instead  of  rejecting  them  as  a 
marginal  correction,  retains  them  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  text.  '  Behold, 
the  nation  of  the  Chaldees  ;  this  people  (it  was  not  Assyria)  has  assigned  it 
(i.  e.  Tyre)  to  the  dwellers  in  the  wilderness  (i.  e.  made  it  desolate).    Urn- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII.  413 

breit,  without  dwelling  on  tin-  violation  of  the  masorctic  accents,  objects  to 
this  interpretation,  that  it  fails  to  account  for  the  use  of  the  word  -px  before 
b+itCbt  but  especially  that  no  reason  can  be  given  for  the  negative  assertion 
that  it  was  not  Assyria  that  desolated  Tyre.  If  the  interpretation,  however, 
were  otherwise  tenable,  this,  so  far  from  being  an  objection,  would  in  fact 
recommend  it.  When  Isaiah  wrote,  Assyria  was  the  ruling  power  of  the 
world  ;  whatever  changes  were  expected,  were  expected  from  that  quarter. 
But  here  the  conquest  of  Phenicia  is  ascribed  to  a  people  then  but  little  known, 
if  known  at  all.  It  was  perfectly  natural  therefore  to  say  negatively,  that  it  was 
no  to  be  effected  by  Assyria,  as  well  as  positively,  that  it  was  to  be  effected  by 
Chaldea.  In  like  manner,  if  the  fall  of  the  Roman  stateJiad  been  foretold 
during  the  period  of  the  Punic  wars,  how  naturally  would  the  prophet  have 
said  that  it  should  fall,  not  before  the  Carthaginians,  but  before  the  Goths, 
The  sense  therefore  yielded  by  Schleyer's  construction  is  a  good  sense  in 
itself  and  appropriate  to  the  context.  It  cannot  however  be  affirmed  that 
there  is  any  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  masoretic  tradition  as  to 
the  interpunction  of  the  sentence.  But  let  it  be  observed,  that  on  either  of 
these  suppositions,  the  reference  of  the  verse  to  the  siege  of  Tyre  by  Ne- 
buchadnezzar is  far  more  natural  than  any  other. 

V.  14.  Howl,  ships  of  Tarshish,  for  destroyed  is  your  stronghold. 
The  first  part  of  the  prophecy  here  closes  very  much  as  it  began.  The 
description  of  Tyre  is  the  same  as  in  v.  4,  except  that  it  was  there  called 
the  fortress  of  the  sea,  and  here  the  fortress  of  the  Tyrian  ships. 

V.  15.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day  that  Tyre  shall  be  forgot- 
ten seventy  years,  as  the  days  of  one  Icing ;  from  the  end  of  seventy  years 
shall  be  (or  happen)  to  Tyre  like  the  harlot's  song.  The  remainder  of 
the  chapter  predicts  the  restoration  of  Tyre,  not  to  its  former  dignity,  but  to 
its  wealth  and  commercial  activity,  the  fruits  of  which  should  thenceforth 
be  consecrated  to  Jehovah.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  with  respect 
to  the  meaning  of  the  words  or  the  grammatical  construction  of  the  sentence ; 
but  the  utmost  diversity  of  judgment  in  relation  to  the  general  sense  and  ap- 
plication of  the  whole,  and  especially  of  the  words,  seventy  years  as  the  days 
of  one  king.  Vitringa  and  others  take  the  seventy  years  strictly.  Gesenius 
and  the  later  German  writers  make  it  a  round  number,  as  in  Gen.  50 :  3.  Ex. 
15:  27.  24:  1.  The  following  words  are  rejected  by  Umbreit  as  a  gloss. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Paulus  read  ^ns  (another)  for  *inx  (one).  Grotius  reads 
seven  for  seventy,  forgetting  that  the  following  noun  must  then  be  in  the  plu- 
ral, and  assuming  that  Shalmaneser  reigned  seven  years,  or  was  seven  years 
at  Tyre.  Jarchi  understands  by  the  one  king  David,  who  died  at  the  age  of 
threescore  and  ten,  though  he  cannot  explain  why  it  should  be  here  referred 


414  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII. 

to.  Kimchi  suggests  that  it  may  be  in  allusion  to  the  treaty  between  David 
and  Hiram,  the  breach  of  which  was  the  occasion  of  this  judgment.  Kimchi 
prefers  however  to  explain  the  words  as  a  description  of  the  ordinary  length 
of  human  life,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Gesenius  and  Maurer,  who  account 
for  the  mention  of  one  king  rather  than  one  man,  upon  the  ground  that  kings 
and  kingdoms  are  the  subject  of  the  prophecy.  The  same  interpretation  is 
suggested  by  the  double  version  of  the  Septuagint  (cog  %Qovog  fiaoilimg,  ag 
XQovog  av&Qmnov),  which  is  found  in  all  the  manuscripts,  though  some  mod- 
ern critics  reckon  only  part  of  it  as  genuine,  Gesenius  considering  the  first 
phrase  as  an  emendation  of  the  second,  Rosenmuller  the  second  as  a  later 
explanation  of  the  first.  Hitzig  pretends  that  this  form  of  expression  was 
borrowed  from  Jeremiah's  expectation  that  Zedekiah  was  to  be  restored  at 
the  end  of  seventy  years.  Movers  supposes  that  the  things  compared  are 
not  two  periods  of  time,  but  two  cases  of  oblivion,  and  understands  the 
clause  as  meaning  that  Tyre  should  be  forgotten  as  completely  as  Jehoahaz 
and  his  three  months'  reign.  Henderson,  more  generally,  makes  the  sense 
to  be  that  Tyre  should  be  forgotten  as  completely  as  a  king  when  he  is 
dead,  in  illustration  of  which  general  fact  he  strangely  cites  the  case  of  Na- 
poleon. Knobel  understands  the  verse  to  mean  that  the  oblivion  of  Tyre 
for  a  time  should  be  as  fixed  and  unalterable  as  the  decrees  of  an  oriental 
monarch  during  his  own  reign.  Eichhorn  and  Ewald  understand  the  phrase 
as  opposite  in  meaning  to  the  one  employed  in  ch.  16:  14.  21  :  16.  As 
the  years  of  a  hireling  mean  years  computed  strictly,  so  the  days  of  a  king 
may  mean  days  computed  freely.  Hengstenberg,  without  attempting  to 
explain  the  phrase  (quomodocunque  ilia  explicentur),  understands  it  to 
imply  that  seventy  years  is  here  to  be  indefinitely  understood,  and  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  and  from  the  other  specifi- 
cations of  time  contained  in  the  writings  of  Isaiah  himself.  Those,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  give  the  words  their  strict  sense,  for  the  most  part  follow 
Aben  Ezra  and  Vitringa  in  supposing  that  the  reigns  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  his  successors  are  here  computed  as  one.  It  is  no  sufficient  answer  to 
say  that  !$>£  never  means  a  dynasty.  That  idea  may  of  course  be  implied 
even  if  it  is  not  expressed.  The  chronological  hypothesis  of  this  interpreta- 
tion has  however  been  denied  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  puts  the  end  of  the 
prescribed  term  thirty-three  or  four  years  later  than  the  fall  of  Babylon. 
That  Tyre  was  a  flourishing  city  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  is  mat- 
ter of  history.  When  it  again  became  so,  is  not.  But  since  the  fact  is 
certain  and  the  prophecy  explicit,  the  most  rational  conclusion  is  that  they 
chronologically  coincide,  or  in  other  words,  that  Tyre  did  begin  to  recover 
from  the  effects  of  the  Babylonian  conquest  about  seventy  years  after  the 
catastrophe  itself.  This  of  course  supposes  that  the  words  are  to  be  defi- 
nitely understood.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  indefinite,  there  can  be 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII.  415 


still  less  difficulty  in  supposing  their  fulfilment.  In  either  case,  the  words 
nnx  "iV»  ra->3  remain  so  enigmatical,  and  all  the  explanations  of  them  so 
unsatisfactory,  that  some  may  be  tempted  to  refer  them  to  the  future,  and  to 
look  for  their  development  hereafter.  Hengstenberg's  view  of  the  connexion 
between  this  prediction  of  Isaiah  and  the  parallel  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  (ch. 
26  and  27)  and  Zechariah  (ch.  9)  is  this,  that  the  last  should  be  regarded 
as  a  supplement  or  sequel  to  the  other  two.  When  Zechariah  wrote,  the 
Babylonian  conquest  predicted  by  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel  had  already  taken 
place.  The  change  for  the  better,  predicted  by  Isaiah  alone,  was  then 
already  visible.  The  prophecies  of  both  respecting  the  total  destruction  of 
the  city  are  renewed  by  Zechariah  and  referred  to  a  period  still  future,  with 
particular  ^reference,  as  Hengstenberg  supposes,  to  the  time  of  Alexander, 
but  it  may  be  with  a  scope  still  more  extensive. — The  last  clause  foretells 
the  restoration  of  Tyre  in  a  very  peculiar  and  significant  form.  Instead  of 
a  queen  reinstated  on  the  throne,  she  now  appears  as  a  forgotten  harlot, 
suing  once  more  for  admiration  and  reward.  Although  this  metaphor,  as  we 
shall  see  below,  does  not  necessarily  imply  moral  turpitude,  it  does  necessa- 
rily impart  a  contemptuous  tone  to  the  prediction.  The  best  explanation 
of  this  change  of  tone  is  not,  as  Eichhorn  imagined,  that  these  verses  are  a 
later  addition,  but  that  the  restoration  here  predicted  was  to  be  a  restoration 
to  commercial  prosperity  and  wealth,  but  not  to  regal  dignity  or  national  im- 
portance. The  song  of  a  harlot  (or  the  harlot)  is  now  commonly  agreed  to 
mean  a  particular  song  well  known  to  the  contemporaries  of  the  Prophet. 
It  shall  be  to  her  like  this  song  can  only  mean  that  what  the  song  presents 
as  an  ideal  situation  should  be  realized  in  the  experience  of  Tyre.  The 
Hebrew  words  will  scarcely  bear  the  meaning  put  upon  them  in  the  text  of 
the  English  Version. 

V.  16.  Take  a  harp,  go  about  the  city,  oh  forgotten  harlot,  play  well, 
sing  much,  that  thou  mayest  be  remembered.  These  are  now  commonly  ex- 
plained as  the  words  of  the  song  itself,  describing  the  only  way  in  which  the 
harlot  could  recover  her  lost  place  in  the  memory  of  men,  viz.  by  soliciting 
their  notice  and  their  favour.  The  application  of  the  song  to  Tyre  implies 
not  only  that  she  had  lost  her  former  position  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,  but 
that  exertion  would  be  needed  to  recover  it.  The  literal  meaning  of  the 
words  translated  play  well,  sing  much,  is  make  good  playing,  multiply  song. 
See  Gesenius  <§>  139,  1. 

V.  17.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass),  from  (or  at)  the  end  of 
seventy  years,  Jehovah  will  visit  Tyre,  and  she  shall  return  to  her  hire  (or 
gain),  and  shall  play  the  harlot  with  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  upon  the 
face  of  the  ground.     As  God  is  said  to  visit  men  both  in  wrath  and  mercy, 


416  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIII. 

and  as  the  figure  here  employed  is  at  first  sight  a  revolting  one,  some  of  the 
older  writers  understand  this  verse  as  describing  the  continued  wickedness  of 
Tyre  requiring  further  judgments.  But  this  makes  it  necessary  to  explain 
the  next  verse  as  referring  to  a  still  remoter  future,  which  is  done  by  insert- 
ing tandem  or  the  like  at  the  beginning.  It  is  evident,  however,  from  the 
repetition  of  the  word  pimpk  in  the  next  verse,  that  the  prediction  there  has 
reference  to  the  very  course  of  conduct  here  described.  From  this  again 
the  inference  is  plain,  that  notwithstanding  the  apparent  import  of  the  figure, 
the  conduct  is  not  in  itself  unlawful.  The  figure  indeed  is  now  commonly 
agreed  to  denote  nothing  more  than  commercial  intercourse  without  neces- 
sarily implying  guilt.  In  ancient  times,  when  international  commerce  was  a 
strange  thing  and  nearly  monopolized  by  a  single  nation,  and  especially 
among  the  Jews,  whose  law  discouraged  it  for  wise  but  temporary  purposes, 
there  were  probably  ideas  attached  to  such  promiscuous  intercourse  entirely 
different  from  our  own.  Certain  it  is  that  the  Scriptures  more  than  once 
compare  the  mutual  solicitations  of  commercial  enterprise  to  illicit  love. 
That  the  comparison  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  idea  of  unlawful  or 
dishonest  trade,  is  sufficiently  apparent  from  the  following  verse. 

V.  18.  And  her  gain  and  her  hire  shall  be  holiness  (or  holy  i.  e.  conse- 
crated) to  Jehovah  ;  it  shall  not  be  stored  and  it  shall  not  be  hoarded ;  for 
her  gain  shall  be  for  those  who  sit  (or  dwell)  before  Johovah,  to  eat  to 
satiety,  and  for  substantial  clothing.  By  those  who  dwell  before  Jehovah 
we  are  probably  to  understand  his  worshippers  in  general  and  his  official 
servants  in  particular.  Henderson's  objection,  that  the  priests  were  not 
allowed  to  sit  in  the  temple,  is  applicable  only  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
verb.  There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  chambers  around  the  temple  which 
were  occupied  by  priests  and  Levites  when  in  actual  service,  pw,  accord- 
ing to  the  Arabic  analogy,  means  ancient  as  an  epithet  of  praise,  and  is  ac- 
cordingly resolved  by  the  modern  writers  into^we  or  splendid.  The  older 
interpreters  deduced  perhaps  from  the  same  original  idea  that  of  durable,  sub- 
stantial, wearing  long  and  well.  The  latter  agrees  better  with  the  application 
of  the  words  to  private  dress,  the  former  to  official  robes,  in  which  magnificence 
was  more  important  than  solidity,  and  which  might  be  transferred  from  one 
incumbent  to  the  next,  and  so  be  represented  even  in  the  stricter  sense  as 
old  or  ancient.  The  general  sense  of  the  prediction  evidently  is,  that  the 
commercial  gains  of  Tyre  should  redound  to  the  advantage  of  the  servants 
of  Jehovah. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV.  417 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 


Here  begins  a  series  of  prophecies  (ch.  xxiv-xxxv),  having  refer- 
ence chiefly  to  Judah.  It  is  not  divided  into  parts  by  any  titles  or  express 
intimations  of  a  change  of  subject.  The  style  is  also  homogeneous  and 
uniform.  The  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  subdivide  this  por- 
tion of  the  book  are  for  the  most  part  arbitrary.  The  conventional  division 
into  chapters  may  be  retained  as  a  matter  of  convenience.  The  first  four 
chapters  (xxiv — xxvn)  are  now  universally  regarded  as  forming  one 
continuous  composition.  What  is  said  of  ch.  xxiv  is  therefore  in  some 
degree  applicable  to  the  whole.  This  chapter  contains  a  description  of  a 
country  rilled  with  confusion  and  distress  by  a  visitation  from  Jehovah  in 
consequence  of  its  iniquities,  vs.  1-12.  It  then  speaks  of  a  remnant  scat- 
tered among  the  nations  and  glorifying  God  in  distant  lands,  vs.  13-16. 
The  Prophet  then  resumes  his  description  of  the  judgments  coming  on  the 
same  land  or  another,  winding  up  with  a  prophecy  of  Jehovah's  exaltation 
in  Jerusalem,  vs.  16-23.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  explained  this  chapter  as 
a  prediction  of  the  end  of  the  world,  in  which  they  have  been  followed  by 
Oecolampadius  and  some  later  writers.  Cyril  referred  it  to  the  same  event, 
but  understood  it  in  its  primary  meaning  as  a  summary  of  the  foregoing 
prophecies  against  foreign  nations.  The  older  Jews  (as  we  learn  from 
Jarchi  and  Aben  Ezra)  applied  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  to  the  Assyrian 
invasions  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  last  to  the  wars  of  Gog  and  Magog 
in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  But  Moses  Haccohen  referred  the  whole  to  the 
former  period,  Kimchi  and  Abarbenel  the  whole  to  the  latter.  Luther  ap- 
plied it  to  the  desolation  of  Judea  by  the  Romans.  Calvin  agreed  with 
Cyril  in  regarding  it  as  a  summary  of  the  preceding  prophecies  both  against 
Israel  and  foreign  nations,  but  denied  any  reference  to  the  day  of  judgment. 
Grotius  adhered  to  Moses  Haccohen,  in  applying  the  whole  to  the  Assyrian 
invasions.  He  referred  the  first  part  to  the  wasting  of  the  ten  tribes  by 
Shalmaneser,  and  the  second  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  of  Judah.  Cocceius 
is  as  usual  in  the  opposite  extreme,  applying  the  chapter  to  the  German 
and  Bohemian  war,  Gustavus  Adolphus,  Wallenstein,  the  taking  of  Ratisbon, 
the  battle  of  Norlingen,  and  the  conflicts  between  Charles  I.  of  England  and 
the  Parliament.  Clericus  understood  the  chapter  as  a  prophecy  of  the 
Babylonian  conquest  of  Judea,  the  captivity,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jew- 
ish commonwealth.  Vitringa  explained  it  as  relating,  in  its  primary  sense,  to 
the  persecution  of  the  Jews  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  his  successors,  and 
their  deliverance  by  the  Maccabees,  but  in  its  mystical  or  secondary  sense 
to  certain  changes  which  await  the  Christian  church  in  future  times.    Lowth 

27 


418  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV. 

differed  little  in  reality  from  Calvin,  except  that  he  confined  the  prediction 
more  exclusively  to  Judah  and  its  sufferings  at  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians, 
Babylonians,  and  Romans.  None  of  the  writers  who  have  now  been  men- 
tioned entertained  the  least  doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  prophecy. 
The  turning  point  between  the  old  and  new  school  of  criticism  is  occupied 
by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  without  suggesting  any  doubt  as  to  the  age  or  au- 
thor, pronounces  the  passage  the  most  difficult  in  the  book,  and  is  altogether 
doubtful  whether  it  has  ever  been  fulfilled.  Koppe  divides  the  chapter  into 
two  independent  prophecies.  Eichhorn  approves  of  this  division,  and  infers 
from  the  style  and  phraseology,  that  the  chapter  was  written  after  the  de- 
struction of  Babylon.  Bertholdt  determines  in  the  same  way  that  it  was 
composed  immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Rosenmuller,  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Scholia,  agrees  with  Eichhorn.  In 
the  second,  he  maintains  that  Isaiah  was  the  author,  and  that  he  here  ex- 
presses a  general  anticipation  of  approaching  changes.  Gesenius  pronounces 
the  style  far  inferior  to  that  of  Isaiah,  and  ascribes  the  passage  to  a  writer  in 
the  Babylonian  exile  just  before  the  fall  of  Babylon.  Hitzig  on  the  other 
hand  ascribes  it  to  an  Ephraimite  captive  in  Assyria,  and  supposes  the  de- 
struction of  Nineveh  to  be  foretold.  Ewald  thinks  the  prophecy  was  written 
in  Palestine  after  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  and  in  anticipation  of  Cam- 
byses'  attack  on  Egypt.  Umbreit  agrees  substantially  with  Gesenius,  and 
Knobel  with  Bertholdt.  We  have  here  another  illustration  of  the  value  of 
the  boasted  modern  criticism.  Gesenius  is  confident  that  the  prophecy  was 
written  in  Babylon  ;  Ewald  and  Knobel  are  equally  confident  that  it  was 
written  in  the  Holy  Land.  Gesenius  disparages  the  style  as  cold  and  ar- 
tificial ;  Hitzig  speaks  of  it  with  contempt  as  awkward,  feeble,  and  inelegant ; 
Ewald  treats  it  with  respect  as  poetical  and  skilful,  although  not  original ;  while 
Umbreit  lauds  it  as  a  noble  specimen  of  Hebrew  poetry.  In  this  case,  as  in 
others,  each  writer  first  determines  upon  general  grounds  the  age  of  the  pro- 
duction, and  then  confirms  it  by  internal  proofs.  The  points  of  resemblance  to 
the  undisputed  writings  of  Isaiah  are  set  down  as  plagiarisms  or  imitations. 
Ewald  even  goes  so  far  as  to  mark  certain  passages  as  borrowed  from  older 
writers  no  longer  extant.  The  paronomasias  and  other  verbal  peculiarities  of 
the  passage,  instead  of  proving  it  the  work  of  Isaiah,  in  whose  acknowledged 
writings  they  are  also  found,  prove  Ihe  contrary  because  they  are  so  numerous. 
In  this  way  all  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  a  disputed  passage  is  rendered 
impossible.  If  it  has  not  the  usual  characteristics  of  the  author,  it  is  therefore 
spurious  ;  if  it  has,  it  is  evidently  an  imitation.  It  is  true,  distinctions  are 
made  as  to  the  number,  good  taste,  and  connexion  ;  but  they  are  always 
made  at  will,  and  so  as  to  confirm  the  previous  conclusion.  Setting  aside 
this  empirical  criticism  as  unworthy  of  attention,  we  may  observe  that  the 
endless  diversity  of  judgment,  both  among  the  older  and  later  writers,  shows 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV.  419 

that  the  prediction  is  generic.  Henderson  observes  indeed  on  Lowth's 
suggestion  that  the  prophecy  refers  to  more  than  one  invasion  of  the  Holy 
Land,  that  "  this  hypothesis,  though  supplying  an  easy  mode  of  interpreting 
all  its  parts,  is  to  be  rejected,  having  been  obviously  framed  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  rid  of  the  difficulties  ;"  as  if  hypotheses  were  ever  framed  for  any 
other  purpose,  and  as  if  there  could  be  a  stronger  proof  th^t  a  hypothesis 
is  true,  than  the  fact  of  its  getting  rid  of  the  difficulties  and  supplying  an 
easy  mode  of  interpreting  all  the  parts.  In  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  the 
exclusive  restriction  of  the  prophecy  to  one  event  is  wholly  arbitrary.  What 
the  Prophet  has  left  indefinite  we  have  no  right  to  make  specific.  Particular 
allusions  there  may  be ;  but  this,  as  we  have  seen  in  other  cases,  does  not 
limit  the  application  of  the  whole. 

V.  1.  Behold  Jehovah  (is)  pouring  out  the  land  and  emptying  it,  and 
he  will  turn  down  its  face,  and  he  will  scatter  its  inhabitants.  The  figure 
is  that  of  a  bottle  or  other  vessel  drained  of  its  contents  by  being  turned  up- 
side down.  The  face  is  not  the  soil  or  ground  (Hendewerk),  but  the  upper 
part  or  mouth  of  the  vessel.  The  last  clause  resolves  the  figure  into  literal 
expressions,  "pert  is  not  to  cause  to  flow,  as  in  Arabic,  but  to  scatter, 
according  to  the  uniform  Hebrew  usage.  The  allusion  may  be  both 
to  flight  and  deportation.  Gesenius  admits  that  •"i|ii  with  the  participle 
commonly  indicates  present  or  future  time ;  but  nevertheless  applies 
this  verse  to  the  Babylonian  conquest  of  Judea,  which  was  long  past 
at  the  time  when  he  supposes  the  chapter  to  have  been  written.  Ewald 
and  Hitzig,  who  refer  it  to  events  still  future  at  the  date  of  the  predic- 
tion, insist  upon  the  future  form.  The  simple  truth  is  that  Isaiah  here 
speaks  of  the  Babylonian  conquest  as  still  distant,  but  at  the  same  time  as 
infallibly  certain.  To  avoid  this  conclusion,  Gesenius  denies  that  Isaiah  was 
the  author,  and  violates  the  usage  of  the  language  by  translating  this  whole 
passage  in  the  past  tense. 

V.  2.  And  it  shall  be,  as  the  people  so  the  priest,  as  the  servant  so 
his  master,  as  the  buyer  so  the  seller,  as  the  borrower  so  the  lender,  as 
the  debtor  so  the  creditor.  That  is,  all  ranks  and  classes  shall  fare  alike. 
The  double  a  to  express  the  idea  as-so  is  like  the  use  of  ei-et  in  Latin 
where  we  say  both-and,  or  aut-aut  where  we  say  either-or.  Kimchi  says 
that  each  term  includes  a  double  comparison,  (the  people)  like  the  priest, 
(and  the  priest)  like  the  people,  (the  servant)  like  the  master,  (and  the  master) 
like  the  servant.  On  the  form  N^3  see  Gesenius  §  74.  20.  The  mention 
of  the  priest  is  no  more  a  proof  of  later  date  in  this  case  than  in  Hos.  4 :  9. 
Saadias  makes  fts  mean  a  prince  or  ruler,  which  is  also  given  in  the  mar- 
gin of  the  English  Bible. 


420  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV. 

V.  3.  The  land  shall  be  utterly  emptied  and  utterly  spoiled,  for  Jehovah 
speaks  (or  hath  spoken)  this  word.  Gesenius  arbitrarily  translates  the 
verbs  as  preterites,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Hendewerk.  Ewald 
explains  them  as  descriptive  presents.  DeWette  as  usual  disregards  the 
reduplication  of  the  Hebrew  verbs.  It  is  no  doubt  emphatic,  however, 
and  may  be  expressed  by  a  simple  repetition,  emptied  emptied  (Ewald), 
or  by  combining  a  verb  and  adjective,  empty  and  emptied  (Hitzig), 
or  by  introducing  an  intensive  adverb,  utterly,  wholly,  as  in  the  English 
Version  and  most  others.  According  to  Knobel,  pisn  is  put  for  the  more 
usual  form  psrn  in  order  to  assimilate  it  to  the  infinitive.  The  full  ortho- 
graphy with  i  is  mentioned  by  Gesenius  as  a  sign  of  later  date,  although  he 
does  not  deny  that  it  also  occurs  in  the  older  books.  The  land  here  men- 
tioned is  supposed  by  Hitzig  to  be  Assyria ;  by  all  other  interpreters  Pales- 
tine. In  order  to  justify  his  reference  of  this  part  of  the  chapter  to  past 
time,  Gesenius  explains  the  last  clause  as  relating  to  the  divine  purpose  or 
decree  (for  so  Jehovah  had  commanded),  whereas  it  elsewhere  denotes  the 
certainty  of  the  event  because  predicted  by  Jehovah.  The  necessity  of  this 
departure  from  the  usage  of  the  phrase  is  a  strong  objection  to  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  chapter  as  written  during  the  Babylonian  exile  by  a  captive  Jew. 

V.  4.  The  earth  mourneth,  fadeth ;  the  world  languisheth,  fadeth ;  the 
highest  of  the  people  of  the  earth  languish,  "pxn  is  not  the  land  (Gesenius,) 
as  appears  from  the  parallel  expression  bnn.  Earth  and  world  however  are  not 
to  be  taken  in  their  widest  sense  (Rosenmuller),but  as  poetical  descriptions 
of  a  country  (Ewald)  ;  not  Assyria  (Hitzig),  but  Palestine.  Jerome  refers 
the  whole  description  to  the  end  of  the  world.  For  nt-ia  Koppe  reads  cha 
from  the  height  (i.  e.  cast  down  from  it),  for  which  there  is  neither  authority 
nor  necessity.  J.  D.  Michaelis  inserts  and  after  dtib  (the  high  ones  and 
the  people  of  the  land)  which  is  also  unnecessary.  The  Septuagint  and 
Peshito  omit  ds,  but  it  is  found  in  all  manuscripts,  dtb  is  an  abstract 
used  for  a  concrete,  height  for  highest  part  or  high  ones.  Henderson  sup- 
poses an  allusion  to  the  two  thousand  nobles  carried  away  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. The  figures  are  borrowed  from  the  vegetable  world.  Several  of 
the  German  writers  amuse  themselves  with  trying  to  copy  the  paronomasia 
in  the  first  clause.  Gesenius  has  dchzet  und  lechzet,  Ewald  es  welkt  es 
verwelkt,  Knobel  welkt  und  f'dllt  die  Welt.  It  is  curious  to  observe  the  pains 
laid  out  upon  these  useless  and  unsuccessful  imitations  by  writers  who  often 
disregard  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  construction. 

V.  5.  And  the  land  has  been  profaned  under  its  inhabitants,  because 
they  have  transgressed  the  laws,  violated  the  statute,  broken  the  everlasting 
covenant.  Knobel  reads,  and  so  the  land,  as  if  the  verse  contained  the 
punishment  and  not  the  sin  of  the  chosen  people.     In  accordance  with  this 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXIV.  421 


hypothesis,  he  explains  the  profaning  of  the  land  to  be  its  invasion  and  sub- 
jection by  the  Babylonians.  Under  its  inhabitants  will  then  mean  nothing 
more  than  the  land  with  those  upon  it.  All  other  writers  seem  to  apply  the 
passage  to  the  Jews,  and  to  understand  it  as  referring  their  calamities  to 
their  transgressions.  The  land  is  said  to  be  profaned  as  being  a  holy  land 
or  consecrated  to  Jehovah.  Most  interpreters  suppose  a  special  reference 
to  pollution  by  blood  or  the  guilt  of  murder  in  accordance  with  Symmach- 
us's  version  lyotaxrawyOfr  The  ancient  versions  give  rnn  the  sense  of  for, 
on  account  of;  but  the  proper  meaning  under  is  far  more  appropriate  and 
expressive.  The  ancient  versions  also  make  pna  plural,  and  this  reading  is 
found  in  one  manuscript  and  one  edition.  Aben  Ezra  explains  the  unusual 
plural  rmn  as  denoting  not  the  law  of  Moses,  but  the  laws  common  to  all 
nations.  Vitringa  in  like  manner  makes  it  synonymous  with  the  jus  gentium 
of  the  Roman  writers.  Hitzig  understands  by  it  the  Noachic  precepts,  on 
account  of  the  allusion  to  the  flood  in  v.  8.  There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient 
reason  for  departing  from  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  words  as  de- 
noting the  divine  law  generally.  The  three  terms  used  are  substantially 
synonymous,  law,  statute,  covenant,  being  continually  interchanged.  Hen- 
derson needlessly  refers  the  last  to  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  and  Hendewerk 
distinguishes  between  the  moral  and  ceremonial  parts  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
The  simple  meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  they  disobeyed  the  will  of  God.  In 
the  phrase,  they  changed  the  ordinance,  Gill  finds  a  reference  not  only  to  the 
popish  corruptions  of  the  eucharist,  but  to  the  substitution  of  infant  sprink- 
ling for  adult  immersion. 

V.  6.  Therefore  a  curse  devoured  the  earth,  and  those  dwelling  in  it 
were  reckoned  guilty  (and  so  treated).  Therefore  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  burned,  and  there  are  few  men  left.  nVx  does  not  here  mean  false 
swearing,  as  explained  in  the  Targum  and  by  Jarchi  and  Kimchi,  but  the 
curse  of  God,  attending  the  violation  of  his  law.  The  mention  of  this  pen- 
alty is  absurdly  represented  by  Gesenius  and  Knobel  as  a  proof  of  the  late 
date  of  the  prophecy.  DBS  is  taken  by  some  of  the  early  writers  in  the  sense 
of  being  desolate.  Its  true  sense  is  that  of  being  recognized  as  guilty  and 
treated  accordingly.  It  therefore  suggests  the  ideas  both  of  guilt  and  pun- 
ishment. Twenty-eight  manuscripts  and  three  editions  with  the  Peshito 
read  nbzx  instead  of  nbrx,  a  variation  probably  derived  from  v.  4,  or  from 
Jer.  43:  10.  The  Septuagint  makes  inn  mean  they  shall  be  poor  ;  Sym 
machus  they  shall  be  exhausted ;  J.  D.  Michaelis  they  shall  be  diminished. 
The  Targum  gives  the  word  the  general  sense  of  being  consumed  or  des- 
troyed;  but  the  latest  writers  all  prefer  the  more  specific  sense  of  burning 
or  being  burnt,  either  by  internal  heat  like  that  of  fever,  or  by  the  fire  of  out- 
ward persecutions.  Houbigant  and  Lowth  without  the  least  authority  read 
■Dnn  for  inn.     Gesenius  supposes  the  imagery  to  be  copied  from  Joel  1  :  8-20 


422  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV. 

V.  7.  The  new  wine  mourneth ;  the  vine  languisheth ;  all  the  merry- 
hearted  do  sigh.  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Henderson  understand  ls-n^n  as  de- 
noting the  juice  of  the  grape  while  on  the  vine  ;  Knobel  by  synecdoche  the 
grape  itself.  But  as  the  whole  description  is  figurative,  there  is  no  need  of 
departing  from  the  usual  sense  of  sweet  or  new  wine.  Rosenmuller  and 
Barnes  think  the  wine  is  here  described  as  mourning  because  none  drink  it ; 
Hendewerk  because  it  is  drunk  by  foreigners  and  not  by  natives.  This  is 
changing  a  natural  and  beautiful  figure  into  a  frigid  conceit.  Gesenius  in- 
forms us  that  this  verse  was  also  copied  from  Joel  (ch.  1  :  10-12)  where  he 
says  it  stands  in  a  much  more  natural  connexion. 

V.  8.  Still  is  the  mirth  of  drums  ;  ceased  is  the  noise  of  revellers  ;  still 
is  the  mirth  of  the  harp.  Music  is  here  mentioned  as  a  common  token  and 
accompaniment  of  mirth.     Three  manuscripts  instead  of  futtt)  read  T»X 

V.  9.  With  the  song  they  shall  not  drink  wine ;  bitter  shall  strong 
drink  be  to  them  that  drink  it.  Hitzig  understands  this  to  mean  that  they 
shall  not  drink  wine  at  all ;  Knobel,  that  it  shall  not  be  accompanied  with 
music.  isib  is  neither  beer  (J.  D.  Michaelis)  nor  palm-wine  (Lowth) 
specifically,  but  intoxicating  drinks  in  general.  The  last  clause  means  of 
course  that  they  should  lose  the  appetite  for  such  enjoyments. 

V.  10.  Broken  down  is  the  city  of  confusion  (emptiness  or  desolation), 
shut  up  is  every  house  from  entering  (i.  e.  so  that  it  is  not  or  cannot  be  en- 
tered). The  city  meant  is  neither  Nineveh  (Hitzig)  nor  cities  in  general 
(Rosenmuller),  but  Jerusalem.  Hitzig  and  Knobel  prefer  the  construction, 
it  is  broken  down  into  (i.  e.  so  as  to  be)  a  city  of  desolation,  but  the  com- 
mon construction  is  more  natural  which  makes  inn  tv+\p  the  subject  of  the 
verb.  The  last  clause  might  be  understood  to  refer  to  the  closing  of  the 
houses  by  the  inhabitants  against  the  enemy,  or  to  their  being  left  unoccu- 
pied ;  but  the  first  clause  seems  to  show  that  it  rather  relates  to  the  obstruc- 
tion of  the  entrance  by  the  ruins.  Rosenmuller's  explanation  of  inn  n^p,  as 
denoting  city  of  idols  or  idolatrous  city,  is  very  unnatural.  Hitzig  and  others 
make  the  yz  before  n^n  simply  equivalent  to  without.  Compare  the  similar 
expression  in  ch.  23  :  1 . 

V.  11.  A  cry  for  wine  in  the  streets — darkened  is  all  joy — departed  is 
the  gladness  of  the  earth.  To  the  critical  acumen  of  Gesenius  this  verse 
stands  confessed  as  a  plagiarism  from  Joel  1:15.  To  the  exquisite  taste  of 
Hitzig  it  is  not  only  an  unda  redundans,  but  completely  lame  and  flat 
(yollends  lahm  und  matt).  One  ground  of  objection  to  it  is  that  a  calling 
for  wine,  though  perfectly  appropriate  in  Joel,  is  entirely  out  of  place  in  this 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV.  423 

description  of  a  conquered  and  dismantled  town.  The  later  writers  have 
had  taste  enough  to  see  that  the  cry  meant  is  not  that  of  drunkards  for  more 
liquor,  hut  of  the  perishing  inhabitants  for  necessary  refreshment  (Hende- 
werk),  perhaps  with  special  reference  to  the  sick  and  wounded  (Henderson) 
or  to  children  (Hitzig).  Knobel  gives  the  words  the  still  more  general 
sense  of  lamentation  for  the  blasted  vintage.  Hendewerk  points  out  that 
wine  alone  is  mentioned  here,  as  bread  is  in  Lam.  4  :  4,  while  in  Lam.  2:12 
both  are  combined.  There  is  no  need  of  taking  nrv:£  in  the  sense  of  a  call  to 
the  wine-sellers  from  their  customers  (Kimchi),  much  less  of  supplying  a  nega- 
tive, so  as  to  make  it  mean  that  there  is  no  call  for  wine  in  the  streets 
(Clericus).  Houbigant  and  Lowth  for  n^is  read  mas  (has  passed  away). 
Rosenmiiller  gives  the  same  or  nearly  the  same  sense  to  the  common  text. 
But  all  the  latest  writers  acquiesce  in  BuxtorPs  definition  of  the  word  as 
meaning  to  grow  dark,  with  special  reference  to  the  setting  of  the  sun  or  the 
coming  on  of  twilight.  This  beautiful  figure  is  itself  an  answer  to  the 
aesthetical  sneers  of  certain  critics.  J~'b:a  may  either  have  the  general  sense  of 
gone,  departed  (Henderson),  or  the  more  specific  one  of  banished  (Gesenius), 
expatriated  (J.  D.Michaelis),  carried  captive  (Umbreit).  The  first  clause  is 
rendered  more  expressive  in  the  versions  of  De  Wette,  Umbreit,  and  Hende- 
werk, by  the  omission  of  the  verb.  The  last  mentioned  writer  understands 
by  the  joy  of  the  land  the  population  of  Jerusalem.  Nine  manuscripts  have 
bz  before  pixf!,  and  the  Septuagint  supplies  it  before  ©TOO. 

V.  12.  What  is  left  in  the  city  is  desolation,  and  into  ruins  is  the  gate 
beaten  down.  The  first  clause  is  in  apposition  to  the  last  of  v.  11.  Joy  is 
gone  and  desolation  is  left  behind.  All  the  modern  writers  take  rrNtfD  as  an 
adverbial  accusative  qualifying  rs^  by  describing  the  effect  or  result  of  the 
action.  The  gate  is  here  named  as  the  most  important  part  of  the  city  ; 
but  it  does  not  directly  mean  the  city  itself.  On  the  form  rs^  see  Gesenius 
§  66.  Rem.  8. 

V.  13.  For  so  shall  it  be  in  the  midst  of  the  earth  among  the  nations, 
like  the  beating  of  an  olive-tree,  like  gleanings  when  the  gathering  is  done. 
There  is  no  need  of  rendering  *3  but  (Uosenmuller)  or  ye*  (Henderson),  as 
the  Prophet  is  stating  more  distinctly  the  extent  of  the  desolation  which  he 
had  before  described.  The  fact  that  some  survive  is  indeed  referred  to,  but 
only  indirectly  and  by  implication,  so  that  the  verse  is  not  properly  an  anti- 
thesis to  that  before  it.  Instead  of  saying  that  Isaiah  here  repeats  his  beau- 
tiful comparison  in  ch.  17:  5,  6,  Gesenius  and  his  followers  set  this  down 
as  the  plagiarism  of  a  later  writer.  The  Prophet  is  thus  reduced  to  a  dilem- 
ma ;  if  he  does  not  repeat  his  own  expressions,  he  is  a  stranger  to  himself 
and  his  own  writings  ;  if  he  does,  he  is  an  imitator  of  a  later  age.     Rosen- 


424  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV. 

muller  supposes  an  allusion  not  only  to  paucity  but  to  inferiority  of  quality. 
In  the  midst  of  the  nations  is  explained  by  Hitzig  as  contrasting  the  condition 
of  the  country  with  that  of  its  neighbours.  Others  understand  it  of  actual 
dispersion  among  foreign  nations. 

V.  14.  They  shall  raise  their  voice,  they  shall  sing  (or  shout),  for  the 
majesty  of  Jehovah  they  cry  aloud  from  the  sea.  The  pronoun  at  the 
beginning  is  emphatic.  They,  not  the  nations  (Schelling)  or  the  Jews  left 
in  the  land  (Barnes),  but  the  few  dispersed  survivors  of  these  judgments. 
The  2  before  p80  is  not  a  particle  of  time  (Rosenmuller),  but  points  out  the 
subject  (Maurer)  or  the  occasion  of  the  praise  (Gesenius).  Ewald  supposes 
the  words  of  the  song  itself  to  be  begun  in  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  and 
continued  through  the  next.  But  this  compels  him  to  change  the  pointing 
of  i^ns  and  make  it  an  imperative.  The  Septuagint  and  Theodotion  have 
the  waters  of  the  sea,  as  if  instead  of  s^ia  they  read  d"ng  or  o^/a.  Dathe 
gives  the  "ja  its  comparative  sense:  more  (i.e.  louder)  than  the  sea.  Jarch 
had  before  given  the  same  construction  but  a  different  sense  :  more  than  (at) 
the  sea,  i.  e.  more  than  they  rejoiced  at  the  deliverance  from  Egypt.  Many 
render  the  phrase  from  the  west,  which  is  rather  implied  than  expressed. 
Hitzig  denies  that  there  is  here  a  transition  to  another  subject,  as  admitted 
by  almost  all  interpreters. 

V.  15.  Therefore  in  the  fires  glorify  Jehovah,  in  the  islands  of  the  sea 
the  name  of  Jehovah  God  of  Israel.  Ewald  supposes  the  words  of  the  song 
or  shout  to  be  continued.  Hendewerk  and  Barnes  understand  the  Prophet 
as  here  turning  from  the  remnant  of  Israel  in  Palestine  to  the  scattered  exiles. 
But  it  seems  to  be  really  an  address  to  the  persons  who  had  already  been 
described  as  praising  God,  exhorting  them  to  do  so  still.  b**iM  has  been 
variously  explained  as  meaning  valleys,  caverns,  doctrines,  fires  of  affliction, 
exile,  Urim  (and  Thumim),  Ur  (of  the  Chaldees),  etc.  Clericus  makes 
c^ian  the  passive  participle  of  "WO.  It  is  now  commonly  agreed  to  be  a 
local  designation.  Doederlein  deduces  from  an  Arabic  analogy  the  meaning 
in  the  north.  Barnes  suggests  that  tn^x  may  denote  the  northern  lights  or 
aurora  borealis.  Henderson  thinks  the  Prophet  means  the  region  of  volcanic 
fires,  viz.  the  Mediterranean  coasts  and  islands.  But  the  weight  of  exegetical 
authority  preponderates  in  favour  of  the  meaning  in  the  east  (as  the  region 
of  sunrise  or  of  dawning  light)  in  opposition  to  the  sea  or  west.  Various 
attempts  have  been  made  to  mend  the  text  by  reading  tr^xn  (Lowth), 
ta^a^o  or  tnasn  (Houbigant),  D*nfta  or  D-njra  (Calmet).  Hensler  reads 
D^'aa  as  a  contraction  for  o-»ix*a,  like  ft*nka  Amos  8 :  8. 

V.  16.    From  the  wing  (skirt  or  edge)  of  the  earth  we  have  heard 
songs,  praise  to  the  righteous,  and  I  said,  woe  to  me,  woe  to  me,  alas 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV.  425 

for  me !  The  deceivers  deceive,  with  deceit  the  deceivers  deceive.  We 
hear  promises  and  praise  lo  the  righteous,  but  our  actual  experience  is  that 
of  misery.  p*nx  is  not  an  epithet  of  God  (Henderson)  or  Cyrus  (Hende- 
werk),  but  of  righteous  men  in  general.  Gesenius  infers  from  the  second 
clause  that  the  writer  was  involved  in  the  miseries  of  Babylon ;  but  the 
same  use  might  be  made  of  every  ideal  situation  which  the  book  presents. 
Several  of  the  ancient  versions  and  of  the  rabbinical  interpreters  take  mi  in 
the  sense  of  secret :  my  secret  is  to  me,  and  I  must  keep  it,  i.  e.  I  cannot 
utter  what  I  know.  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  followed  by  Vitringa,  give  it 
the  specific  sense  of  leanness.  But  the  latest  writers  understand  it  as 
denoting  ruin,  misery,  or  woe,  and  the  whole  exclamation  as  substantially 
equivalent  to  that  which  follows.  Here,  as  in  ch.  21  :  2,  the  latest  writers 
make  nan  express  not  fraud  but  violence,  which  is  contrary  to  usage  and 
entirely  unnecessary.  Ewald  takes  iyg  in  its  usual  sense  of  garment,  and 
explains  the  clause  to  mean,  that  robbers  strip  off  the  very  clothes,  *3BI 
p^sb  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  very  language  of  the  song  referred  to ; 
but  it  may  as  well  be  a  description  of  it,  (a  song  of)  praise  or  honour  to  the 
righteous. 

V.  17.  Fear  and  pit  and  snare  upon  thee,  oh  inhabitant  of  the  land! 
This  may  be  either  a  warning  (are  upon  thee)  or  the  expression  of  a  wish 
(be  upon  thee).  It  is  a  probable  though  not  a  necessary  supposition,  that 
the  terms  here  used  are  borrowed  from  the  ancient  art  of  hunting.  "ins 
would  then  denote  some  device  by  which  wild  beasts  were  frightened  into 
snares  and  pitfalls.  It  is  at  least  a  remarkable  coincidence  that  the  Romans 
gave  the  name  formido  to  an  apparatus  used  for  this  purpose.  Henderson 
explains  the  Hebrew  word  to  mean  a  scarecrow.  The  paronomasia  is  copied 
by  Gesenius,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Hitzig,  in  as  many  different  forms.  It 
is  of  course  regarded  as  a  proof  of  recent  origin,  though  no  one  undertakes 
to  say  at  what  precise  period  the  paronomasia  became  a  favourite  with  the 
Hebrew  writers. 

V.  18.  And  it  shall  be  (that)  the  (one)  flying  from  the  voice  of  the  fear 
shall  fall  into  the  pit,  and  the  (one)  coming  up  from  the  midst  of  the  pit 
shall  be  taken  in  the  snare  ;  for  windows  from  on  high  are  opened,  and 
the  foundations  of  the  earth  are  shaken.  The  first  clause  carries  out  the 
figures  of  the  foregoing  verse ;  the  second  introduces  those  of  a  deluge  and 
an  earthquake.  One  manuscript  instead  of  Vipa  reads  "^fiB,  and  some  inter- 
preters regard  Vip  as  a  mere  idiomatic  pleonasm.  But  it  much  more  proba- 
bly denotes  the  voice  of  the  hunter  or  the  noise  made  by  the  instrument  called 
-ins.  The  allusion  to  the  flood  is  acknowledged  by  all  writers  except  Kno- 
bel,  who  objects  that  the  Hebrews  did  not  believe  that  there  could  be  a 


426  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV. 

second  deluge  ;  as  if  this  belief  could  prevent  their  understanding  or  employ- 
ing such  a  figure  of  speech.  There  are  thousands  now  who  have  the  same 
belief,  but  who  do  not  for  that  reason  feel  debarred  from  representing  over- 
whelming evils  as  a  deluge  of  misfortune  or  of  wrath.  Akin  to  this  is  the 
assertion  of  the  same  writer,  and  of  Gesenius  before  him,  that  the  early- 
Hebrews  actually  thought  that  there  were  windows  in  the  solid  vault  of 
heaven.  In  the  same  way  it  might  be  proved  that  Milton  held  the  stars 
and  planets  to  be  burning  lamps,  and  that  Gesenius  himself  when  he  speaks 
of  a  column  of  smoke  means  a  solid  piece  of  masonry.  It  seems  to  be  a 
canon  with  some  critics,  that  all  the  prosaic  language  of  the  Bible  is  to  be 
interpreted  as  poetry,  and  all  its  poetry  as  prose,  especially  when  any  colour 
is  afforded  for  the  charge  of  ignorant  credulity.  Kimchi  imagines  that  win- 
dows are  here  mentioned  as  the  apertures  through  which  God  looks  upon 
the  earth  :  Knobel  as  those  through  which  he  sends  down  thunderbolts  and 
lightning.  But  the  allusion  to  the  flood  is  rendered  certain  by  the  resem- 
blance of  the  language  to  that  used  in  Gen.  7:11. 

V.  19.  Broken,  broken  is  the  earth;  shattered,  shattered  is  the  earth; 
shaken,  shaken  is  the  earth.  This  striking  verse  is  pronounced  by  Gesenius 
and  Hitzig,  in  accordance  with  some  mystical  canon  of  criticism,  very 
inelegant  and  in  bad  taste.  They  both  assign  the  reason  that  the  word 
earth  is  repeated.  Hitzig  adds  that  the  verse  contains  an  anticlimax,  which 
is  not  the  case,  as  no  natural  phenomenon  can  be  more  impressive  than  an 
earthquake.  The  reduplication  of  the  Hebrew  verbs  is  as  variously  ex- 
pressed by  the  different  translators  as  in  v.  3. 

V.  20.  The  earth  reels,  reels  like  a  drunken  man,  and  is  shaken  like  a 
hammock.  And  heavy  upon  her  is  her  guilt,  and  she  shall  fall  and  rise  no 
more.  The  ideas  earth  and  land,  both  which  are  expressed  by  the  Hebrew 
•px,  run  into  one  another  and  are  interchanged  in  a  manner  not  to  be  ex- 
pressed in  a  translation.  The  old  translation  of  the  second  clause  (removed 
like  a  cottage)  is  now  commonly  abandoned.  Sia^Ei  is  properly  a  temporary 
lodging-place.  In  ch.  1 :  8  it  was  applied  to  a  watch-shed  in  a  melon-field. 
Here  it  seems  to  signify  something  more  movable  and  something  suspended 
in  the  air.  The  latest  writers  are  accordingly  agreed  in  retaining  the  inter- 
pretation put  upon  the  word  by  the  Targum,  the  Peshito,  and  Saadias,  which 
makes  it  mean  a  cloth  or  mat  suspended  between  trees  or  boughs  of  trees 
for  the  use  of  nocturnal  watchers.  Such  are  described  by  Niebuhr  as  com- 
mon in  Arabia,  and  are  known  throughout  the  east  by  a  name  essentially 
identical  with  those  used  in  the  versions  above  cited.  The  readers  of  this 
verse  would  never  have  discovered,  without  Hitzig's  aid,  that  its  figures  are 
extravagant  and  overstrained. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIV.  427 

V.  21.  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day  (that)  Jehovah  shall  visit  (for  the 
purpose  of  inflicting  punishment)  upon  the  host  of  the  high  place  in  the  high 
place  and  upon  the  kings  of  the  earth  upon  the  earth.  Interpreters  have 
commonly  assumed  that  the  host  of  the  high  place  is  the  same  with  the  host 
of  heaven,  and  must  therefore  mean  either  stars  (Jerome)  or  angels  (Aben 
Ezra)  or  both  (Gesenius).  Grotius  understands  by  it  the  images  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  worshipped  in  Assyria.  Gesenius  finds  here  an  allusion  to 
the  punishment  of  fallen  angels,  and  then  makes  this  a  proof  of  recent  origin, 
because  the  Jewish  demonology  was  later  than  the  time  of  Isaiah.  It  may 
be  doubted  whether  there  is  any  reference  to  the  host  of  heaven  at  all.  WW 
is  a  relative  expression,  and  although  applied  to  heaven  in  v.  18,  is  applied 
to  earth  or  to  human  society  in  v.  4.  The  former  sense  may  seem  to  be 
here  required  by  the  antithesis  of  rianx  ;  but  it  is  not  clear  that  any  antithesis 
was  intended,  which  is  the  less  probable  because  rnanx  is  not  the  customary 
opposite  of  heaven.  The  sense  may  simply  be  that  God  will  judge  the 
high  or  lofty  host  viz.  the  kings  of  the  land  upon  the  land.  But  even  if 
there  be  an  antithesis,  and  even  if  the  host  of  heaven  in  the  usual  sense  of 
the  expression  be  alluded  to,  the  analogy  of  this  whole  context  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  this  is  merely  a  strong  figure  for  different  ranks  or  degrees  of 
dignity  on  earth.  It  is  not  indeed  probable  that  the  Jewish  hierarchy  is 
specifically  meant,  as  Barnes  supposes ;  but  it  is  altogether  natural  to  un- 
derstand the  words  more  generally  as  denoting  kings  and  potentates.  And 
even  on  the  supposition  that  the  contrast  here  intended  is  between  the  hosts 
of  heaven  and  earth,  the  obvious  meaning  is  that  God  will  judge  the  princi- 
palities and  powers  of  both  worlds,  in  order  to  accomplish  his  declared  de- 
signs. To  pronounce  the  passage  spurious  because  it  seems  to  speak  of  evil 
spirits  and  their  doom,  is  to  assume  that  nothing  is  ever  mentioned  for  the 
first  time,  but  that  all  allusions  to  a  doctrine  must  be  simultaneous.  Even 
in  the  later  books  of  Scripture,  how  few  and  incidental  and  obscure  are  the 
allusions  to  this  subject !  In  the  same  taste  and  spirit  and  of  equal  value 
are  Gesenius's  attempts  to  connect  this  verse  with  the  doctrines  of  Zoroas- 
ter. It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark  that  Hitzig,  who  delights  in  all  such 
demonstrations  of  a  later  date  and  lower  standard  of  opinion  in  the  sacred 
books,  foregoes  that  pleasure  here  and  flatly  denies  that  there  is  any  refer- 
ence to  demons  in  the  text,  because  he  had  assumed  the  ground  that  it  was 
written  in  Assyria  before  the  fall  of  Nineveh. 

V.  22.  And  they  shall  be  gathered  with  a  gatnering  as  prisoners  in  a 
pit,  and  shall  be  shut  up  in  a  dungeon,  and  after  many  days  they  shall  be 
visited.  Whether  nsox  be  construed  with  "^ex  (the  gathering  of  a  prison- 
er) or  explained  as  an  emphatic  reduplication,  the  sense  of  the  first  clause 
evidently  is  that  they  shall  be  imprisoned.    The  persons  meant  are  of  course 


428  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV. 

the  principalities  and  powers  of  the  verse  preceding.  The  affinity  between 
nao  and  "ir\0^  cannot  well  be  expressed  in  English,  as  it  is  in  the  German 
version  of  Gesenius  (verschlossen  ins  Verschloss).  There  are  two  inter- 
pretations of  the  verb  nptt**  According  to  one  it  means  they  shall  be  pun- 
ished, or  at  least  brought  forth  to  judgment.  This  is  the  sense  put  upon  it 
by  Eichhorn,  Rosenmuller,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk. 
The  other  is,  they  shall  be  visited  in  mercy.  This  explanation  is  as  old  as 
Rabbi  Joseph  Kimchi,  if  not  as  the  Peshito.  Calvin  seems  to  favour  it, 
and  it  is  adopted  by  Hitzig,  Henderson,  and  Ewald.  Barnes,  who  refers 
these  verses  to  the  Jewish  priests,  gives  the  verb  the  specific  meaning,  shall 
be  mustered,  with  a  view  to  their  return  from  exile. 

V.  23.  And  the  moon  shall  be  confounded  and  the  sun  ashamed,  for 
Jehovah  of  Hosts  is  Icing  in  Mount  Zion  and  in  Jerusalem,  and  before  his 
elders  there  is  glory.  Before  the  splendour  of  Jehovah's  reign  all  lesser 
principalities  and  powers  shall  fade  away.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing 
an  allusion  to  the  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon.  Some  give  to  ^9  the  sense 
of  when,  which  is  admissible  but  needless  and  indeed  inadequate.  It  was 
not  merely  when  Jehovah  reigned,  but  because  he  reigned,  that  all  inferior 
luminaries  were  to  be  eclipsed.  The  elders  are  the  rulers  of  Israel  as  the 
church.  Henderson  sees  a  distinct  allusion  to  the  form  of  government  by 
elders,  as  that  which  shall  prevail  in  the  last  and  best  days  of  the  church. 
The  simple  meaning  of  the  verse  appears  to  be  that  Jehovah's  reign  over  his 
people  shall  be  more  august  than  that  of  any  created  sovereign.  This  is 
true  of  the  church  in  various  periods  of  history,  but  more  especially  in  those 
when  the  presence  and  power  of  God  are  peculiarly  manifested.  The 
affinity  between  this  verse  and  the  last  of  the  preceding  chapter  seems  to 
show  that  their  juxtaposition  is  by  no  means  fortuitous.  The  Septuagint 
renders  the  first  clause  thus,  the  brick  shall  moulder  and  the  wall  shall  fall. 
They  evidently  read  h^S  and  tt»n,  although  Grotius  imagines  that  the 
deviation  from  the  true  sense  was  intentional,  in  order  to  avoid  offending  the 
Platonists  of  Egypt  by  disparaging  the  sun  and  moon.  If  such  a  motive 
could  have  influenced  the  authors  of  the  version,  its  effects  would  not  have 
been  confined  to  one  or  a  few  comparatively  unimportant  passages. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 


This  chapter   consists  of  three  distinguishable  parts.     The  first  is  a 
thanksgiving  to  God  for  the  destruction  of  Babylon  and  the  deliverance  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV.  429 

the  Jews,  vs.  1-5.  The  second  is  a  promise  of  favour  to  the  gentiles  and 
the  people  of  God,  when  united  on  Mount  Zion,  vs.  6-9.  The  third  is  a 
threatening  of  disgraceful  ruin  to  Moab,  vs.  10-12. 

It  may  be  mentioned  as  a  specimen  of  Ewald's  bold  and  arbitrary  criti- 
cism, that  he  connects  vs.  6-11  directly  with  ch.  24,  puts  the  first  four 
verses  together  as  a  strophe,  and  the  fifth,  twelfth,  and  first  four  verses  of 
the  next  chapter,  as  another  strophe. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that,  though  the  modern  German  writers  all  regard 
this  chapter  as  the  work  of  the  same  period,  and  indeed  of  the  same  author 
as  the  one  before  it,  they  find  here  none  of  those  strong  proofs  of  deteriorated 
taste  and  diction  which  are  so  abundant  in  the  other  case.  To  be  consis- 
tent, they  should  either  ascribe  the  passages  to  different  authors,  or  admit  that 
the  twenty-fourth  was  written  at  a  time  and  by  a  man  not  incapable  of  pure 
and  lofty  composition.  It  ought  to  be  observed  however  that  the  admirable 
figure  in  v.  10  strikes  the  delicate  taste  of  Gesenius  as  low  (unedel)  and  of 
Ewald  as  dirty  (schmutzig). 

Cocceius,  in  his  exposition  of  this  chapter,  still  enjoys  his  old  hallucina- 
tion that  it  is  a  chapter  of  church-history,  referring  the  first  part  to  the  great 
rebellion  in  England,  and  the  last  to  the  destruction  of  the  Turks,  etc. 

V.  1 .  Jehovah  my  God  (art)  thou ;  I  will  exalt  thee ;  I  will  praise  thy 
name ;  for  thou  hast  done  a  wonder,  counsels  from  afar  off,  truth,  cer- 
tainty. The  song  of  praise  opens  in  the  usual  lyric  style.  (See  Ex.  15:  2, 
11.  Ps.  118:28.  145:  1.)  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  and  some  others,  read 
oh  thou  my  God,  without  supplying  the  substantive  verb ;  but  the  latter 
construction  is  more  agreeable  to  usage,  sriix  strictly  means  J  will  acknow- 
ledge or  confess.  The  whole  phrase  may  either  mean,  I  will  acknowledge 
thy  goodness  towards  me,  or  I  will  confess  thee  to  be  what  thy  name  im- 
ports, I  will  acknowledge  thy  acts  to  be  consistent  with  the  previous  reve- 
lations of  thine  attributes.  Some  render  »bfi  simply  as  a  plural.  Rosenmuller 
explains  it  as  a  collective  implying  that  many  particular  wonders  were  in- 
cluded. Vitringa  more  naturally  makes  it  an  indefinite  expression,  some- 
thing wonderful  (mirabile  quid).  What  wonder  is  especially  referred  to, 
the  next  verse  explains.  The  last  clause  admits  of  several  different  con- 
structions. Ewald,  with  many  of  the  older  writers,  makes  it  an  independent 
proposition,  of  which  niss  is  the  subject  and  nr.ax  the  predicate.  Thus 
the  English  Version  :  thy  counsels  of  old  are  faithfulness  and  truth.  Barnes 
supplies  another  verb :  thou  hast  shown  to  be  faithful  and  true.  Gesenius 
makes  rvnt*  as  well  as  xbt  the  object  of  the  verb  n*»w»,  and  supplies  a  prepo- 
sition before  rttYDK  or  regards  it  as  an  adverbial  accusative :  thou  hast  ex- 
ecuted ancient  plans  (with)  faithfulness  and  truth.  Hitzig  simplifies  the 
same  construction  still  more  by  making  all  the  nouns  in  the  last  clause  ob- 


430  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV. 


jects  of  the  verb  in  the  first :  thou  hast  brought  to  pass  a  wonder,  ancient 
counsels,  faithfulness,  truth.  From  afar  off  seems  to  imply,  not  only  that 
the  plans  were  formed  of  old,  but  that  they  were  long  ago  revealed.  Even 
long  before  the  event  they  are  certain.  Hitzig,  who  applies  the  whole 
prophecy  to  Nineveh,  is  disposed  to  understand  this  clause  as  referring  to 
the  earlier  prophecies  of  its  destruction  by  Nahum  and  Zephaniah.  The 
Septuagint,  followed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  reads  ftw  Amen  (ytvouo)  which 
would  here  be  out  of  place,  "pa  and  MtoNH  are  cognate  forms,  both  de- 
noting truth  or  certainty,  and  here  combined,  according  to  a  very  common 
Hebrew  idiom,  for  emphasis. 

V.  2.  For  thou  hast  turned  (it)  from  a  city  to  a  heap,  a  fortified  town 
to  a  ruin,  a  palace  of  strangers  from  (being)  a  city ;  forever  it  shall  not 
be  built.  According  to  Rosenmiiller,  city  is  here  put  for  cities  in  general, 
and  the  verse  contains  a  promise  or  prophetic  description  of  the  golden  age 
when  fortifications  should  no  longer  be  needed,  as  Virgil  says  of  the  same 
ideal  period,  that  there  shall  then  no  more  be  oppida  muris  cincia.  Most  in- 
terpreters however  are  agreed  that  it  refers  to  a  particular  city ;  Grotius 
says  Samaria  ;  Capellus,  Jerusalem  ;  Hitzig,  Nineveh  ;  the  others,  Babylon. 
Cocceius  applies  the  first  clause  to  the  overthrow  of  episcopacy  in  England, 
and  especially  to  the  exclusion  of  the  bishops  from  the  house  of  lords.  (Sen- 
sus  hie  est :  ex  ecclesia  episcopali  fecisti  acervum,  hoc  earn  est  totam  diruisti.) 
The  other  clause  he  applies  to  the  subsequent  change  of  the  republic  into  a 
tyranny  (from  a  city  to  a  palace  of  strangers),  Prate  means  strictly  thou  hast 
placed,  but  is  often  used  with  ^  to  denote  the  conversion  of  a  thing  into 
something  else.  Here  it  is  separated  from  l$j  by  ^se,  an  unusual  colloca- 
tion, which  led  Houbigant  to  read  w  or  WIJ,  in  which  he  is  followed  by 
Lowth,  Doderlein,  Dathe,  Gesenius,  and  Knobel.  J.  D.  Michaelis  reads  W 
fcprato,  which  instead  of  easing  the  construction  makes  it  still  more  harsh. 
The  difficulty  is  entirely  removed,  without  a  change  of  text,  by  supposing 
the  object  of  the  verb  to  be  W  or  W}*Jfi  understood.  Thou  hast  changed  (a 
city)  from  a  city  to  a  heap.  So  Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  and  others.  Ge- 
senius doubts  whether  such  an  ellipsis  is  admissible ;  but  it  is  surely  more  so 
than  an  arbitrary  change  of  text.  Another  solution  of  the  syntax  is  pro- 
posed by  Hitzig,  c  thou  hast  turned  from  a  city  to  a  heap  a  fortified  town  to 
a  ruin,'  in  which  case  nbsraMs  an  unmeaning  repetition  of  b>\,  without  even 
parallelism  or  rhythm  to  sanction  it.  The  same  construction  had  substan- 
tially been  given  long  before  by  De  Dieu.  Hendewerk  goes  still  further 
and  connects  rbtxb  with  tMl  f&to  :  <  thou  changest  the  fortified  town  from 
a  city  to  a  heap,  the  palaces  of  strangers  from  a  city  to  ruins.'  Gesenius 
gives  rt^WjMj  here  its  primary  and  proper  sense  of  inaccessible.  Most  of  the 
modern  writers  understand  by  a  palace  of  strangers  the  royal  city  mention- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV.  431 

ed  in  the  first  clause,  called  a  palace  on  account  of  its  splendour,  or  as  being 
a  collection  of  palaces,  or  because  the  palace  was  the  most  important  part 
of  it.  V8MSJ  must  then  be  taken  in  a  privative  sense  (so  as  not  to  be  a  city). 
But  as  the  same  phrase  in  the  first  clause  means  from  being  a  city,  some 
give  it  that  sense  here  and  understand  the  clause  to  mean  that  God  had 
changed  it  from  a  city  to  a  palace  (or  royal  residence)  of  strangers.  But  if 
it  ceased  to  be  a  city,  how  could  it  become  a  palace  ?  There  is  in  fact  no 
inconsistency  between  the  senses  put  upon  "WW  by  the  usual  interpretation. 
Even  in  the  first  clause  it  means  strictly  from  or  away  from  a  city,  which 
can  be  clearly  expressed  in  our  idiom  only  by  using  a  negative  expression. 
For  d'ht  Houbigant  proposes  to  read  Dint,  wholly  without  reason  or  authority. 
n^T  has  the  same  sense  as  in  ch.  1  :  7.  For  the  use  of  stranger  in  the 
sense  of  enemy,  Gesenius  cites  the  authority  of  Ossian.  Grotius  explains  it 
to  mean  strange  gods  or  their  worshippers,  and  applies  the  whole  phrase  to 
the  idolatrous  temple  of  Samaria.  The  Targum  in  like  manner  makes  it 
mean  an  idol-temple  in  Jerusalem  itself. 

V.  3.  Therefore  a  powerful  people  shall  honour  thee,  a  city  of  terrible 
nations  shall  fear  thee.  The  destruction  of  Babylon,  and  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  thereby,  shall  lead  even  the  boldest  and  wildest  of  the  heathen  to 
acknowledge  Jehovah  as  the  true  God.  It  is  usual  to  apply  the  terms  of 
this  verse  specifically  to  the  Medes  and  Persians  as  the  conquerors  of  Baby- 
lon. Hitzig  refers  them  t»  the  Medes  and  Babylonians  as  the  conquerors 
of  Nineveh.  To  this  it  may  be  objected  that  the  epithets,  according  to 
usage,  imply  censure  rather  than  praise,  and  that  a*1^"^  is  applied  in  the 
next  verse  to  the  conquered  Babylonians  themselves  as  having  once  been 
tyrants  or  oppressors.  There  seems  to  be  no  need  of  applying  the  verse  to 
a  cordial  voluntary  recognition  of  Jehovah.  It  may  just  as  well  denote  a 
compulsory  extorted  homage,  fear  being  taken  in  its  proper  sense.  The 
verse  will  then  be  an  apt  description  of  the  effect  produced  by  Jehovah's 
overthrow  of  Babylon  on  the  Babylonians  themselves.  There  is  still  another 
explanation,  namely,  that  which  understands  the  verse  more  indefinitely  as 
descriptive  of  an  effect  produced  upon  the  nations  generally.  This  how- 
ever does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  use  of  the  terms  people  and  city  in  the 
singular  number,  for  although  they  may  be  taken  as  collectives,  such  a  con- 
struction should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity.  But  even  on  the  other 
supposition,  there  is  something  unusual  in  the  expression  city  of  nations.  It 
must  either  be  explained  as  implying  a  plurality  of  subject  nations,  or  d?ia 
must  be  taken  in  its  secondary  sense  of  gentiles,  heathen,  as  applied  to  in- 
dividuals or  to  one  community. 

V.  4.  For  thou  hast  been  a  strength  (or  stronghold)  to  the  weak,  a 
strength  (or  stronghold)  to  the  poor,  in  his  distress,  a  refuge  from  the 


432  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV. 

storm,  a  shadow  from  the  heat,  when  the  blast  of  the  terrible  (or  of  the 
tyrants)  was  like  a  storm  against  a  wall.  The  nations  shall  reverence 
Jehovah,  not  merely  as  the  destroyer  of  Babylon,  but  as  the  deliverer  of  his 
people,  for  whose  sake  that  catastrophe  was  brought  about.  tisn  is  not 
merely  strength  in  the  abstract,  but  a  strong  place  or  fortress.  b*r  and 
•p'-ox  are  epithets  often  applied  to  Israel  considered  as  a  sufferer.  The  two 
figures  of  extreme  heat  and  a  storm  of  rain  are  combined  to  express  the  idea 
of  persecution  or  affliction.  tD  may  also  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense  of  for, 
as  pointing  out  the  reason  why  protection  was  required,  ton  does  not  di- 
rectly denote  wrath,  but  breath,  and  here  a  violent  breathing  as  indicative 
of  anger.  It  is  thus  explained  by  Gesenius  (Zornhauch),  while  Ewald 
gratuitously  lowers  the  tone  of  the  description  by  translating  the  word  snort- 
ing (Schnauben).  Jarchi  explains  i^p  ant  (wall-storm)  as  denoting  a  storm 
which  overthrows  or  destroys  a  wall.  The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the 
Targum,  Peshito,  and  Vulgate,  and  approved  by  most  of  the  recent  writers. 
Knobel  objects  that  the  phrase  does  not  naturally  suggest  the  idea  of  sub- 
version or  destruction,  and  on  that  account  adopts  the  reading  Tip  proposed 
by  Cappellus,  and  approved  by  Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  Dathe.  The  phrase 
would  then  mean  a  cold  or  winter  storm.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  a 
change  in  the  text,  although  Knobel's  objection  to  the  common  explanation 
is  well  founded.  The  Hebrew  phrase  naturally  signifies  precisely  what  the 
English  Version  has  expressed,  to  wit,  a  storm  against  a  wall,  denoting  the 
direction  and  the  object  of  the  violence,  but  not  its  issue.  As  a  storm  of 
rain  beats  upon  a  wall,  so  the  Babylonian  persecution  beat  upon  the  captive 
Jews.  The  simple  but  striking  and  impressive  imagery  of  this  verse  is  very 
far  from  indicating  an  inferior  writer  or  a  recent  date  of  composition.  It  is 
not  strange,  however,  that  this  fine  passage  should  be  deemed  unworthy  of 
Isaiah  or  his  times  by  those  who  look  upon  Macpherson's  Ossian  as  a  relic 
of  antiquity. 

V.  5.  As  heat  in  a  drought  (or  in  a  dry  place),  the  noise  of  strangers 
wilt  thou  bring  down ;  (as)  heat  by  the  shadow  of  a  cloud,  (so)  shall  the 
song  of  the  tyrants  be  brought  low.  The  sufferings  of  Israel  under  oppres- 
sion shall  be  mitigated  and  relieved  as  easily  and  quietly  as  the  intense  heat 
of  the  sun  by  an  intervening  cloud.  The  noise  mentioned  in  the  first  clause 
is  probably  the  tumult  of  battle  and  conquest,  and  the  song  in  the  last  clause 
the  triumphal  song  of  the  victorious  enemy.  The  meaning  branch  is  more 
agreeable  to  usage,  but  not  so  appropriate  in  this  connexion.  De  Dieu's 
translation  of  the  last  words,  the  pruning  (or  excision)  of  the  tyrants  shall 
bear  witness,  is  extremely  forced.  Still  worse  is  that  of  Junius  and  Tre- 
mellius :  it  (the  heat)  ansvjered  (or  favoured)  the  branch  of  the  oppressors. 
The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  both  the  clauses,  though  the  first  is  elliptical, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV.  433 

and  the  idea  of  a  shadowy  cloud  must  be  supplied  from  the  second.  Ge  se- 
nilis makes  rW  intransitive;  the  later  Germans  take  it  as  a  lliphil  form 
(he  shall  bring  low)  corresponding  to  r^sn  in  the  other  clause.  Barnes 
removes  the  enallage  by  rendering  r:r-  in  the  second  person.  Koppe  and 
Bauer  most  gratuitously  read  it  as  a  passive,  n:y\  As  "p"1*  is  properly  an 
abstract,  it  may  be  applied  either  to  time  or  place,  a  dry  season  or  a  des- 
ert, without  affecting  the  sense.  The  Seventy  appear  to  have  read  "ji'S 
Zion,  which  would  change  the  sense  entirely. 

V.  6.  And  Jehovah  of  Hosts  will  make,  for  all  nations,  in  this  mountain, 
a  feast  of  fat  things,  a  feast  of  wines  on  the  lees,  of  fat  things  full  of  ma r- 
row,  of  wines  on  the  lees  well  refined.  Jerusalem,  hitherto  despised  and 
oppressed,  shall  yet  be  a  source  of  attraction,  nourishment,  and  exhilaration, 
to  mankind.  This  verse  resumes  the  thread  of  the  discourse,  which  was 
interrupted  at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter,  for  the  purpose  of  inserting  the 
triumphal  song  (vs.  1-5).  Having  there  said  that  Jehovah  and  his  elders 
should  appear  in  glory  on  Mount  Zion.  he  now  shows  what  is  there  to  be 
bestowed  upon  the  nations.  tt"»sao  properly  means  fatnesses,  here  put  for 
rich  and  dainty  food.  Clericus  strangely  supplies  sheep,  as  if  ta^saiD  were  an 
adjective.  ditoi!)  means  the  lees  of  wine,  as  being  the  keepers  (from  ■HHJ  to 
keep)  or  preservers  of  the  colour  and  flavour.  It  is  here  put  for  wine  kept 
long  upon  the  lees,  and  therefore  old  and  of  superior  quality.  n^ppT^  pro- 
bably means  strained  or  filtered,  b^rrac  from  nn«  is  put  for  the  more  usual 
form  Bfflim,  i°  order  to  assimilate  it  to  the  other  word.  This  verse  contains 
a  general  statement  of  the  relation  which  Jerusalem  or  Zion  should  sustain 
to  the  whole  world,  as  a  source  of  moral  influence.  There  is  nothing  to 
indicate  the  time  when  the  promise  should  be  fulfilled,  nor  indeed  to  restrict 
it  to  one  time  exclusively.  As  the  ancient  seat  of  the  true  religion,  and  as 
the  cradle  of  the  church  which  has  since  overspread  the  nations,  it  has 
always  more  or  less  fulfilled  the  office  here  ascribed  to  it. 

V.  7.  And  he  will  swallow  up  (i.  e.  destroy)  in  this  mountain  the  face 
of  the  veil,  the  veil  upon  all  peoples,  and  the  web,  the  (one)  woven  over  all 
the  nations.  The  influence  to  go  forth  from  this  centre  shall  dispel  the 
darkness,  both  of  ignorance  and  sorrow,  which  now  broods  over  the  world. 
The  subject  of  jhe  verb  is  of  course  Jehovah.  By  the  face  of  the  veil  some 
understand  the  veil  itself.  Others  suppose  a  metathesis  for  the  veil  of  the 
face.  Lowth  adopts  the  reading  in  one  manuscript,  which  sets  tag  before 
D^sn  ^a.  Gesenius,  with  more  probability,  infers  from  the  analogous  ex- 
pression in  Job  41:5,  that  the  veil  or  covering  is  here  described  as  bein<* 
the  surface  or  upper  side  of  the  object  covered.  Most  interpreters  suppose 
an   allusion  to  the   practice  of  veiling   the  face   as   a  sign  of  mourning, 

28 


434  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV. 

which  agrees  well  with  the  next  verse  and  is  no  doubt  included,  but  the 
words  seem  also  to  express  the  idea  of  a  veil  upon  the  understanding.  (Vide 
supra,  ch.  22:  8.)  Some  have  explained  the  words  as  relating  to  the  cov- 
ering of  the  faces  of  condemned  criminals;  but  this  is  neither  justified  by 
usage  nor  appropriate  in  this  connexion.  Gesenius  makes  the  second  D*&  an 
active  participle  of  unusual  form,  chosen  in  order  to  assimilate  it  to  the  fore- 
going noun  (the  cover  covering).  But  as  the  language  contains  traces  of  the 
usual  form  s&,  and  as  the  forms  here  used  are  not  only  similar  but  identical, 
it  seems  more  natural  to  suppose  an  emphatic  repetition  of  the  noun  itself, 
especially  as  such  repetitions  are  so  frequent  in  the  foregoing  chapter.  Some 
of  the  ancient  versions,  deriving  FP&B  from  a  verbal  root  meaning  to  anoint, 
explain  the  clause  as  threatening  the  fall  of  a  tyrannical  power.  Thus  the 
Targum  has  '  the  face  of  the  chief  who  rules  over  all  peoples  and  the  face 
of  the  king  who  rules  over  all  kingdoms.'  Henderson  deduces  from  the 
Arabic  analogy  the  specific  and  appropriate  sense  of  web  or  weaving. 

V.  8.  He  has  swallowed  up  death  forever,  and  the  Lord  Jehovah 
wipes  away  tears  from  off  all  faces,  and  the  reproach  of  his  people  he  will 
take  away  from  off  all  the  earth,  for  Jehovah  hath  spoken  (it).  The  people 
of  God,  who  seemed  to  be  extinct,  shall  be  restored  to  life,  their  grief  ex- 
changed for  joy,  and  their  disgrace  for  honour  in  the  presence  of  the  world, 
a  result  for  which  he  pledges  both  his  power  and  foreknowledge.  The  pre- 
terite form  3>!bs  may  either  be  explained  as  a  descriptive  present,  or  as  indi- 
cating something  previous  in  point  of  time  to  what  is  mentioned  afterwards. 
Henderson  objects  to  the  rendering  of  the  Piel  by  the  English  swallow  up  ; 
but  the  sense  of  destroying,  which  he  prefers,  is  evidently  secondary  and 
derivative.  Barnes,  on  the  other  hand,  supposes  a  specific  allusion  to  a 
maelstrom,  which  is  erring  in  the  opposite  extreme.  Rosenmiiller  under- 
stands the  first  clause  as  a  promise,  that  in  the  golden  age  which  Isaiah  anti- 
cipated, wars  and  mutual  violence  should  cease;  Gesenius,  as  a  promise  of 
immortality  like  that  which  man  enjoyed  before  the  fall.  Hendewerk  applies 
it  to  the  death  and  immortality  of  Israel  as  a  nation.  The  true  sense  seems 
to  be  that  all  misery  and  suffering,  comprehended  under  the  generic  name  of 
death,  should  be  completely  done  away.  It  is  then  a  description  of  the 
ultimate  effects  of  the  influence  before  described  as  flowing  from  Mount 
Zion  or  the  church  of  God.  In  its  highest  sense  this  may  never  be  realized 
by  any  individual  till  after  death.  Paul  says  accordingly  (1  Cor.  15:  54), 
that  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal 
shall  have  put  on  immortality,  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass  the  saying  that 
is  written,  xarETzo&v  6  ■davaiog  dg  rwog.  As  this  is  not  an  explanation  of 
the  text  before  us,  nor  even  a  citation  of  it  in  the  way  of  argument,  but 
merely  a  sublime  description,  all  that  it  was  necessary  to  express  was  the 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXV.  435 

final,  perpetual,  triumphant  abolition  of  death.  The  phrase  elg  vixog  there- 
fore (which  is  also  found  in  Theodotion's  version),  although  not  a  strict 
translation  of  nssb,  is  no  departure  from  its  essential  meaning.  In  its  pri- 
mary import,  the  clause  is  a  promise  to  God's  people,  corresponding  to  the 
foregoing  promise  to  the  nations.  While  on  the  one  hand  he  would  lift 
the  veil  from  the  latter,  and  admit  them  to  a  feast  upon  Zion,  on  the 
other  he  would  abolish  death  and  wipe  tears  from  the  faces  of  his  people. 
The  restriction  of  these  last  expressions  to  the  pains  of  death,  or  to  the  sor- 
row of  bereavement,  detracts  from  the  exquisite  beauty  of  the  passage,  which 
the  poet  Burns  (as  Barnes  informs  us)  could  not  read  without  weeping,  a 
sufficient  proof  that  he  was  not  aware  of  the  German  discovery,  that  this 
prediction  is  an  extremely  lame  and  flat  composition,  quite  unworthy  of  the 
Prophet  to  whom  it  has  from  time  immemorial  been  erroneously  ascribed. 

V.  9.  And  one  shall  say  (or  they  shall  say)  in  thai  day,  Lo,  this  is  our 
God ;  we  have  waited  for  him,  and  he  will  save  us  ;  this  is  Jehovah  ;  we 
have  waited  for  hi?n ;  let  us  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  his  salvation.  When 
these  gracious  promises  shall  be  fulfilled,  those  who  have  trusted  in  them 
shall  no  longer  be  ashamed  of  their  strong  confidence,  because  it  will  be 
justified  by  the  event,  and  they  will  have  nothing  left  but  to  rejoice  in  the 
fulfilment  of  their  hopes.  This  is  our  God,  this  is  Jehovah  ;  as  if  they  had 
said,  this  is  the  God  of  whom  we  have  spoken,  and  for  trusting  in  whom  we 
have  so  often  been  derided.  We  have  waited  long,  but  he  is  come  at  last, 
to  vindicate  hi^  truth  and  our  reliance  on  him.  The  augmented  futures  at 
the  close  may  either  denote  fixed  determination  (we  ivill  rejoice,  we  will  be 
glad)  or  a  proposition  (let  us  then  rejoice)  for  which  the  language  has  no 
other  distinct  form. 

V.  10.  For  the  hand  of  Jehovah  shall  rest  upon  this  mountain,  and 
Moab  shall  be  trodden  down  under  him  (or  in  his  place)  as  straw  is  trodden 
in  the  water  of  the  dunghill.     While  Israel  shall  thus  enjoy  the  permanent 
protection  of  Jehovah,  his  inveterate  enemies  shall  experience  ignominious 
destruction.     God's  hand  is  the  symbol  of  his  power.     Its  resting  on  an 
object  is  the  continued  exercise  of  that  power,  whether  for  good  or  evil. 
This  is  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  object,  as  this  mountain  cannot  well 
mean  any  thing  but  what  is  meant  in  vs.  6,  7,  to  wit,   Mount  Zion  or  the 
church  of  God,  and  the  promise  of  the  foregoing  context  must  of  course  be 
continued  here.     Moab  and  Edom  were  the  two  hereditary  and  inveterate 
enemies  of  Israel,  their  hatred  being  rendered  more  annoying  and  conspicu- 
ous by  their  affinity  and  neighbouring  situation.    Hence  they  are  repeatedly 
mentioned,  separately  or  together,  as  the  representatives  of  obstinate  and 
malignant  enemies  in  general.     Henderson  insists  upon  the  word's  being 


436  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXV. 

taken  in  its  literal  import ;  but  this  is  not  excluded  in  the  usual  interpreta- 
tion.    As  the  name  British,  in  our  own  revolutionary  war,  became  equiva- 
lent to  hostile,  without  losing  its   specific   sense,  so  might  the  Prophets 
threaten  Moab  with  God's  vengeance,  without  meaning  to  exclude  from  the 
denunciation  other  likeminded  enemies.     This  wide  interpretation,  both  of 
Moab  and  Edom,  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  one  of  them  is  often  mentioned 
where  both  would  seem  to  be  equally  included.     The  figure  in  the  last 
clause  is  strongly  expressive  both  of  degradation  and  destruction.     Moab  is 
likened  not  only  to  straw,  but  to  straw  left  to  rot  for  the  dunghill.     The 
idea  of  subjection  and  ruin  is  expressed  by  the  figure  of  treading  down  or 
trampling  under  foot.    tt¥8  is  commonly  translated  thresh ;  but  as  the  oriental 
threshing  was  performed  for  the  most  part  by  the  feet  of  cattle,  this  sense 
and  that  of  treading  down  are  really  coincident.     In  reference  to  the  same 
usage,  the  Septuagint,  Peshito,  and  Vulgate  introduce  the  word  wagons, 
meaning  the  heavy  carts  or  threshing  machines  of  the  east.     Lowth  conjec- 
tures that  they  read  rasna  for  Fffitfna ;  but  the  former  word  denotes  a  chariot, 
especially  a  chariot  of  war,  and  the  versions  in  question  do  not  necessarily 
imply  a  difference  of  text.     According  to  some  writers,  naana  is  the  name  of 
a  city  Madmenah,  which  may  at  one  time  have  belonged  to  Moab,  and  be 
mentioned  here  on  account  of  some  local  peculiarity.     Henderson  thinks 
there  can  be  no  allusion  to  this  place  ;  but  it  is  perfectly  accordant  with  the 
usage  of  the  sacred  writers  to  suppose,  that  the  word  was  here  intended  to 
convey  a  contemptuous  allusion  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  name  in 
question.     As  an  appellative,  it  is  a  noun  of  place  derived  from  •pi  and 
denoting  either  a  manured  field  or  a  dunghill.    The  Jceri,  or  masoretic  read- 
ing in  the  margin,  has  las,  a  poetical  equivalent  of  3,  the  preposition  in. 
The  Jcethib  or  textual  reading,  which  is  probably  more  ancient,  is  "^n,  in  the 
water.     This,  with  the  next  word,  may  denote  a  pool  in  which   the  straw 
was  left  to  putrefy.     In  Job  9 :  30  we  have  an  opposite  correction,  iaa  in 
the  text  and  *»a  in  the  margin.     Under  him  may  either  mean  under  Jehovah 
or  under  himself,  that  is,  in  his  own  place,  in  the  country  of  Moab,  or 
wherever  he  is  found. 

V.  1 1 .  And  he  shall  spread  forth  his  hands  in  the  midst  of  it,  as  the 
swimmer  spreadeth  forth  his  hands  to  swim  ;  and  he  shall  humble  his  pride, 
together  with  the  spoils  (or  devices)  of  his  hands.  From  this  ignominious 
doom  Moab  shall  in  vain  try  to  save  himself;  his  pride  shall  be  humbled, 
and  his  struggles  only  serve  to  precipitate  his  ruin.  Having  compared  the 
fall  of  Moab  to  the  treading  down  of  straw  in  a  filthy  pool,  the  Prophet 
carries  out  his  figure  here,  but  with  a  change  so  slight  and  at  the  same  time 
jbo  natural,  as  almost  to  escape  observation,  while  it  greatly  adds  to  the  lifeiof 
the  description.     The  downtrodden   straw  now   becomes  a  living  person, 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXV.  437 

and  struggles  in  the  filthy  pool  to  save  himself  from  drowning,  but  in  vain. 
The  older  writers  for  the  most  part  make  Jehovah  the  subject  of  the  verb  at 
the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  But  the  image  then  becomes  incongruous, 
not  only  as  applied  to  God,  but  Etfl  failing  to  express  any  appropriate  action 
upon  his  part.  It  is  indeed  explained  to  mean  that  God  will  strike  him  here 
and  there,  or  in  every  part,  as  a  swimmer  strikes  the  waves  in  all  directions  ; 
but  this  idea  might  have  been  expressed  more  clearly  by  a  hundred  other 
images.  So  too  tnpaifl  explained  to  mean  that  God  would  strike,  not  merely 
on  the  surface  or  extremities  of  Moab,  but  in  the  very  midst  of  him,  or  to  his 
very  centre,  which  is  still  more  forced  and  arbitrary.  The  only  idea  nat- 
urally suggested  by  the  images  employed  is  that  of  a  drowning  man  strug- 
gling in  the  water.  The  latest  writers  therefore  follow  Grotius  in  referring 
tu^b  to  SOTO,  and  the  suffix  in  ns^pn  to  the  pool  or  dunghill,  rrcrw  has  been 
variously  explained  as  meaning  strength,  spoils,  arms,  armpits,  joints,  etc. 
The  sense  by  the  strength  of  his  hands  (i.  e.  God's)  is  precluded  by  the 
preposition  M,  which  does  not  indicate  the  instrument  or  means,  but  signifies 
together  with.  Rosenmiiller  and  Ewald  prefer  the  meaning  joints,  founded 
on  an  Arabic  analogy.  Gesenius  adheres  to  Hebrew  usage  and  explains 
the  word  to  mean  devices,  plots  (insidiis,  which  Robinson  translates  am- 
buscades, a  word  of  less  extensive  import  than  the  Latin  one).  The  men- 
tion of  the  hands  is  explained  by  Gesenius  from  the  fact  that  a-*  primarily 
means  to  knit,  spin,  or  weave.  It  is  hard,  however,  to  resist  the  impression, 
that  these  last  words  have  respect  to  the  image  in  the  first  clause,  and  de- 
scribe the  movements  of  the  swimmer's  hands  in  endeavouring  to  save  him- 
self. Eichhorn,  Umbreit  and  Knobel  carry  the  figure  through  the  verse, 
explaining  WWUI  to  mean  his  back  or  his  rising,  and  the  last  words  either 
his  arms  or  the  motions  of  his  hands.  But  most  interpreters  suppose  the 
figure  to  be  dropped  in  this  clause  and  the  humbling  of  Moab  to  be  here 
foretold  in  literal  terms.  Lowth's  proposition  to  read  nnir  for  rtjto  (he  that 
sinks  fors  he  that  swims)  is  not  only  needless,  but  injurious  to  the  force  of 
the  expression,  puts  an  unusual  sense  upon  the  word  supposed,  and  does 
away  with  an  example  of  a  very  common  Hebrew  idiom,  that  of  combining 
verbs  with  their  participles  and  derivative  nouns. 

V.  12.  And  the  fortress  of  the  high  fort  of  thy  walls  he  hath  cast 
down,  humbled,  brought  to  the  ground,  to  the  very  dust  (or  even  to  the  dust). 
Many  interpreters  suppose  that  the  Prophet  here  reverts  from  Moab  to  the 
city  mentioned  in  the  second  verse.  Others  more  naturally  understand  this 
as  the  close  of  the  prediction  against  Moab  ;  first,  because  abrupt  transitions 
should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity  :  and  secondly,  because  the  verse 
appears  to  be  an  amplification  of  the  phrase  tanaa  ^BVn  in  that  before  it. 
nszs  and  awn  are  equivalent  in  usage  though  distinct  in  etymology.     Both 


438  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI. 

are  local  nouns  and  mean  a  place  of  safety,  but  the  prominent  idea  in  the 
first  is  that  of  fortification,  in  the  second  that  of  loftiness.  Some  manuscripts 
read  Tpnbn  in  the  feminine,  in  which  case  the  city  or  country  is  the  object 
of  address,  in  the  other  the  nation,  or  Moab  represented  as  a  man.  The 
specific  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  cannot  be  distinctly  traced  in  history.  It 
was  certainly  verified,  however,  in  the  downfall  of  the  Moabitish  nation, 
whenever  it  took  place. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 


This  chapter  contains  a  song  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  to  be  sung  by 
Israel  after  his  deliverance,  vs.  1-19.  To  this  is  added  a  postscript,  inti- 
mating that  the  time  for  such  rejoicing  was  not  yet  at  hand,  vs.  20,  21. 

The  song  opens  with  an  acknowledgment  of  God's  protection  and  an 
exhortation  to  confide  therein,  vs.  1-4.  This  is  founded  on  the  exhibition 
of  his  righteousness  and  power  in  the  destruction  of  his  foes  and  the  oppres- 
sors of  his  people,  vs.  5-11.  The  church  abjures  the  service  of  all  other 
sovereigns,  and  vows  perpetual  devotion  to  him  by  whom  it  has  been  de- 
livered and  restored,  vs.  12—15.  Her  utter  incapacity  to  save  herself  is  then 
contrasted  with  God's  power  to  restore  his  people  to  new  life,  with  a  joyful 
anticipation  of  which  the  song  concludes,  vs.  16-19.  The  additional  sen- 
tences contain  a  beautiful  and  tender  intimation  of  the  trials,  which  must  be 
endured  before  these  glorious  events  take  place,  with  a  solemn  assurance 
that  Jehovah  is  about  to  visit  both  his  people  and  their  enemies  with 
chastisement,  vs.  20,  21. 

V.  1.  In  that  day  shall  this  song  be  sung  in  the  land  of  Judah :  We 
have  a  strong  city  ;  salvation  will  he  place  (as)  walls  and  breastwork.  The 
condition  and  feelings  of  the  people  after  their  return  from  exile  are  ex- 
pressed by  putting  an  ideal  song  into  their  mouths.  Though  the  first  clause 
does  not  necessarily  mean  that  this  should  actually  be  sung,  but  merely  that 
it  might  be  sung,  that  it  would  be  appropriate  to  the  times  and  to  the  feelings 
of  the  people,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  it  was  actually  used  for  this 
purpose,  which  could  more  readily  be  done  as  it  is  written  in  the  form  and 
manner  of  the  Psalms,  with  which  it  exhibits  many  points  of  resemblance. 
The  day  meant  is  the  day  of  deliverance  which  had  just  been  promised. 
Lowth  connects  in  the  land  of  Judah  with  what  follows,  in  violation  of  the 
accents  and  without  the  least  necessity.     Nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  the  song 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  M 

itself  would  have  begun  with  such  ;i  formula,  unless  the  singers  are  assumed 
to  be  the  Jews  still  in  exile,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  following 
verse.  Knobel  on  the  other  hand  asserts  that  the  singers  are  no  doubt  the 
Jews  left  by  the  l>ab\  lonians  in  the  land  of  Judah.  This  is  necessarily  in-» 
volved  in  his  hypothesis,  that  eh.  xxi\  -xxvn  were  written  immediately  after 
Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest.  (See  the  introduction  to  chap,  xxiv.)  Another 
inference  from  this  supposition  is,  that  the  verse  before  us  describes  Jerusa- 
lem in  its  dismantled  state,  as  still  protected  by  the  divine  favour,  whereas 
it  is  rather  a  description  of  the  divine  help  and  favour,  as  the  city's  best 
defence,  or  as  that  without  which  all  others  would  be  useless.  Ewald, 
however,  makes  it  mean  that  walls  and  bulwarks  give  salvation  (Heil 
geben  Maucrn  unci  Graben),  which,  besides  the  harsh  construction,  yields 
a  sense  directly  opposite  to  that  intended.  The  obvious  and  natural 
construction  of  rw  is  with  mm  understood.  The  future  form  implies  that 
the  description  is  prospective,  bn  is  the  outer  and  lower  wall  protecting 
the  trench  or  moat  of  a  fortification.  The  whole  phrase  is  rendered  by  the 
Septuagint  ruj[ogMtu  mQtiti%og.  Junius  adds  to  his  translation  of  this  verse 
the  word  dicendo,  so  as  to  make  the  next  the  words  of  God  himself. 

V.  2.  Open  ye  the  gates,  and  lei  the  righteous  nation  enter,  Jcseping 
truth  (or  faith).  The  supposition  of  responsive  choruses  gives  a  needless 
complexity  to  the  structure  of  the  passage.  The  speakers  are  the  same  as 
in  the  first  verse,  and  the  words  are  addressed  to  those  who  kept  the  doors. 
Knobel  understands  this  as  the  language  of  the  remaining  Jews,  exhorting 
themselves  or  one  another  to  receive  the  returning  exiles.  These  are  de- 
scribed as  righteous  and  as  keeping  faith,  probably  in  reference  to  the  cessa- 
tion of  idolatry  among  the  Jews  during  the  exile.  Lowth  connects  *afa 
D*?«»  with  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse.  J.  D.  Michaelis  makes  it  an 
independent  proposition  (he  preserves  the  faithful).  Knobel  says  that  the 
use  of  Hi  in  application  to  the  Jews  is  a  later  usage,  which  assertion  is  un 
douhtedly  true  if  every  place  where  it  occurs  is  assumed  to  be  of  recent  date. 

V.  3.  The  mind  stayed  (on  thee)  thou  wilt  preserve  in  peace  (in)  peace 
(i.  e.  in  perfect  peace),  because  in  thee  (it  is)  confident  (literally  confided). 
This  is  a  general  truth  deduced  from  the  experience  of  those  who  are  sup- 
posed to  be  the  speakers.  Lowth  adds  the  last  words  of  the  foregoino-  verse 
constant  in  the  truth,  stayed  in  mind,  by  which  nothing  is  gained  and  the 
masoretic  interpunction  needlessly  violated.  Calvin  makes  the  first  two 
words  an  independent  clause  (cogitatio  fixa),  and  Ewald  seems  to  adopt  the 
same  construction  (die  Einbihlung  steht  fest)  probably  meaning  that  what 
follows  is  a  just  thought  or  a  certain  truth.  Luther  seems  to  refer  it  to  God's 
promise  (nach  gewisser  Zusage).     But  the  best  construction  is  the  common 


440  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI. 

one,  which  connects  -p^D  tr*  with  the  following  words,     ix^  is  the  invention 
(or  perhaps  the  constitution)  of  the   mind,  put  for   the  mind   itself.     The 
elliptical  construction   in   the   English  Bible  (him  whose  mind  is  stayed  on 
'thee)  is  not  very  natural ;  still  less  so  that  of  Knobel,  who  refers  ^oo  to  the 
person  understood,  and   makes  ^x"1  a  qualifying   noun  (stayed  as  to  mind) 
citing   as  examples  of  a  similar  inversion  ch.  22:  2.  Nah.  3:1.     Barnes 
omits  "1362  altogether  in  his  version  (him  that  is  stayed  on  thee).     Henderson 
gives  the  true  construction,  making  ^kn  govern  W  directly,  though  he  ren- 
ders TfiK&jirm,  which  is  hardly  an  adequate  translation,  as  the  wrord   neces- 
sarily includes  the  idea  of  reliance  i.  e.  upon  God.     Ewald  derives  nsss  from 
!tt^  instead   of  "ixs,  and  translates  it  thou  wilt  form  (or  create)  peace.     For 
this  no  reason  can  be  given,  except  that  it  evolves  a  new  paronomasia,  both  in 
sense  and  sound,  between  the  noun  and  verb.     The  mere  assonance  exists  of 
course,  however   the  words  may  be  explained  ;  and  though  Gesenius  was 
so  unhappy  as  to  overlook  it,  Knobel  has  copied  it  by  the    combination 
Festigen  festigest.     The  idiomatic  iteration, pence  jteace,  to  express  a  super- 
lative, is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  frequent  reduplications  of  the  twenty- 
fourth  chapter,  and  may  serve  to  show,  that  the  accumulation  of  such  idioms 
there  arises  from  a  difference  of  subject  or  of  sentiments  to  be  expressed,  and 
not  from  want  of  genius  or  corruption  of  taste.     There  is  no  need  of  ex- 
plaining ntoa  as  a  passive  substituted  for  an  active  participle.     The  word 
corresponds  both  in  form  and  meaning  to  assured  in  English. 

V.  4.    Trust  ye  in  Jehovah  forever  (literally,  even  to  eternity),  for  in 
Jah  Jehovah  is  a  rock  of  ages  (or  an  everlasting  rock).     To  the  general 
truth  stated  in  v.  3,  a  general  exhortation   is  now  added,  not  addressed  by 
one  chorus  to  another,  but  by  the  same  ideal  speakers  to  all  who  hear  them 
or  are  willing  to  receive  the  admonition.     This  is  one  of  the  few  places  in 
which  the  name  Jehovah  is  retained  by  the  common  English  Version.     On 
the  origin  and  usage  of  the  name  PF  vide  supra,  ch.  12  :  2.     The  occurrence 
of  the  combination  here  confirms  its  genuineness  there.     In  this  place  it  is 
at  least   as  old  as   Aquila,   who  has  h  raj  xvgt'cp  xvQiog.     Knobel  however 
chooses  to  reject  rtjhfy  as  a  mere  explanation  or  correction  of  rr,  added  by  a 
later  hand.     Cocceius,  in  accordance  with  bis  own  etymology  of  FrV  trans- 
lates it  in  decentia  Jehovae,  which  is  very  much  like  nonsense.     Vitringa 
makes  these   names   the  subject  of  the  proportion  (Jah  Jehovah  est  rupes 
saeculorum),  according  to  DeDieu's  observation,  that   the  preposition  a  is 
often  pleonastic.     The  same  construction  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  on  the 
around  that  a  is  frequently  a  beth  essentiae,  corresponding  to  the  French  en 
in  the  phrase  en  roi,  i.  e.  in  (the  character  or  person  of)  a  king.     The  ex- 
istence of  this  idiom  in   Hebrew  is  denied,  both  by  Winer  in  his  Lexicon 
and  Ewald  in  his  Grammar,  but  maintained  against  them  by  Gesenius  in  his 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  441 

Thesaurus.  It  is  evident  however  that  in  all  the  cases  where  it  is  assumed, 
that  conclusion  can  only  be  defended  on  the  ground  of  exegetical  necessity, 
and  that  such  analogies  cannot  require  or  even  authorize  the  preference  of 
this  obscure  and  harsh  construction  where  the  obvious  and  simple  one  is* 
perfectly  admissible.  In  the  case  before  us,  Gesenius  is  obliged  to  create  a 
necessity  for  his  construction,  by  gratuitously  making  n?  the  subject  and 
rvjsr;  the  predicate  of  the  proposition.  This  he  chooses  to  translate,  Jehovah 
is  God,  but  it  ought  to  have  been  Jah  is  Jehovah,  and  as  one  of  these  names 
is  explained  by  himself  to  be  a  mere  abbreviation  of  the  other,  the  clause 
becomes  an  identical  proposition,  meaning  nothing  more  than  that  Jehovah 
is  himself.  All  that  is  gained  by  the  supposition  of  a  beth  essentiae  may  be 
secured,  without  departing  from  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  preposition,  by 
supplying  an  active  verb,  as  in  Augusti's  version,  in  him  (ye  have)  an 
everlasting  rock.  But  the  simplest  and  most  accurate  of  all  constructions  is 
the  common  one,  retained  by  Ewald,  who  omits  neither  Jah  nor  the  particle 
before  it,  but  translates  the  clause,  for  in  Jah  Jahve,  is  an  everlasting  rock. 
This  figurative  name,  as  applied  to  God,  includes  the  two  ideas  of  a  hiding 
place  and  a  foundation,  or  the  one  complex  idea  of  a  permanent  asylum. 
Barnes  translates  the  whole  phrase,  everlasting  refuge.  Lowth's  never- 
failing  protection  is  correct  in  sense,  but  in  form  a  diluted  paraphrase. 

V.  5.  For  he  hath  brought  down  the  inhabitants  of  the  high  place,  the 
exalted  city  ;  he  will  lay  it  low,  he  will  lay  it  low,  to  the  very  ground ; 
he  will  bring  it  to  the  very  dust.  He  has  proved  himself  able  to  protect 
his  people,  and  consequently  worthy  to  be  trusted  by  them,  in  his  signal 
overthrow  of  that  great  power  by  which  they  were  oppressed.  nna'i'S  means 
lofty  in  the  sense  of  being  inaccessible,  and  is  especially  applied  to  for- 
tresses, as  we  have  seen  with  respect  to  the  derivative  noun  33VB,  ch.  25  :  12. 
Hitzig  explains  *3&*  to  mean  those  enthroned  ;  but  its  connexion  with  D'nti 
requires  it  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  inhabitants.  The  alternation  of  the 
tenses  here  is  somewhat  remarkable.  Henderson  translates  them  all  as  pre- 
terites ;  Barnes  uses  first  the  present,  then  the  preterite ;  both  which  con- 
structions are  entirely  arbitrary.  The  English  Version  more  correctly  treats 
them  all  as  presents,  which  is  often  allowable  where  the  forms  are  intermingled 
and  is  also  adopted  by  the  latest  German  writers.  But  in  this  case,  a  reason 
can  be  given  for  the  use  of  the  two  tenses,  even  if  strictly  understood.  The 
Prophet  looks  at  the  events  from  two  distinct  points  of  observation,  his  own 
and  that  of  the  ideal  speakers.  With  respect  to  the  latter,  the  fall  of  Baby- 
lon was  past ;  with  respect  to  the  former  it  was  still  future.  He  might 
therefore  naturally  say,  even  in  the  same  sentence,  he  has  brought  it  loivand 
he  shall  bring  it  to  the  dust.  Cocceius  as  usual  reproduces  the  precise 
form  of  the  Hebrew  sentence.     Nothing  can  well  be  more  unlike  than  the 


442 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVI. 


looseness  of  this  writer's  exegesis  and  the  critical  precision  of  his  mere 
translation.  Henderson  thinks  the  masoretic  interpunction  wrong,  and 
throws  ns^su^  into  the  first  clause,  to  which  arrangement  there  are  three 
objections :  first,  that  it  is  arbitrary  and  against  the  textual  tradition : 
second,  that  it  makes  the  suffix  in  the  verb  superfluous,  the  object  having 
been  expressed  before  ;  and  third,  that  it  renders  less  effective,  if  it  does 
not  quite  destroy,  the  idiomatic  iteration  of  the  verb,  which  is  characteristic 
of  this  whole  prediction.  13?  strictly  means  as  far  as,  and  may  be  expressed 
in  English,  either  by  the  phrase  even  lo,  or  by  the  use  of  the  intensive  very. 
as  above  in  the  translation. 

V.  6.  The  foot  shall  trample  on  it,  the  feet  of  the  afflicted,  the  steps  of 
the  weak.  The  ruins  of  the  fallen  city  shall  be  trodden  under  foot,  not  only 
by  its  conquerors,  but  by  those  whom  it  oppressed.  Neither  *3$  nor  hi  strictly 
signifies  poor.  The  prominent  idea  in  the  first  is  that  of  suffering,  in  the 
second  that  of  weakness.  They  are  here  used,  like  bn  and  "jy»aa  in  ch.  25  :  4. 
as  epithets  of  Israel  while  subjected  to  the  Babylonian  tyranny,  ^ess. 
which  Luther  translates  heels  (Ferse)  and  Junius  footsteps  (vestigia),  is  here 
a  poetical  equivalent  to  feet.  Henderson  here  translates  the  verbs  in  the 
present,  Barnes  more  exactly  in  the  future. 

V.  7.  The  way  for  the  righteous  is  straight  (or  level)  ;  thou  most  up- 
right wilt  level  (or  rectify)  the  path  of  the  righteous.  A  man's  way  is  a 
common  scriptural  figure  for  his  course  of  life.  A  straight  or  level  way  is  a 
prosperous  life.  It  is  here  declared  that  the  course  of  the  righteous  is  a  pros- 
perous one,  because  God  makes  it  so.  Di-na^a  strictly  denotes straightness,  the 
plural  being  used  as  an  abstract.  The  moral  sense  of  uprightness  does  not 
suit  the  connexion.  *B?  may  either  be  construed  as  a  vocative,  or  with  the 
name  of  God  understood  (as  a  righteous  God).  Knobel  makes  it  an  ad- 
verbial accusative,  thou  dost  rectify  the  path  of  the  righteous  straight,  i.  e. 
so  as  to  make  it  straight.  The  primary  idea  of  obs  is  to  render  even  ;  it  is 
therefore  applied  both  to  balances  and  paths  ;  but  the  two  applications  are 
not  to  be  confounded  ;  paths  may  be  made  even,  but  they  cannot  be 
weighed. 

V.%8.  Also  in  the  way  of  thy  judgments,  oh  Jehovah,  we  have  waited 
for  thee ;  to  thy  name  and  thy  remembrance  (ivas  our)  souVs  desire.  For 
this  manifestation  of  thy  righteousness  and  goodness  we  have  long  been 
waiting  in  the  way  of  thy  judgments,  i.  e.  to  see  thee  come  forth  as  a  judge, 
for  the  vindication  of  thy  people  and  the  destruction  of  their  enemies. 
Name  and  remembrance  or  memorial  denote  the  manifestation  of  God's  attri- 
butes in  his  works.     Ewald   translates  the  second   fame  or  glory  (Ruhm). 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVI.  Ml 

J.  D.  Michaelis  connects  the  first  words  with  the  seventh  verse,  <  thou  dost 
regulate  the  path  of  the  righteous,  hut  also  the  way  of  thy  judgments.' 
Lowth  takes  -patr  -  in  the  sense  of  laws  and  ^ip  in  that  of  trusting.  It  is 
more  probable  however  that  tin*  same  idea  is  expressed  here  as  in  ch. 
25:  9. 

V.  9.  (  With)  my  soul  have  I  desired  thee  in  the  night ;  yea  (with)  my 
spirit  tvithin  me  will  I  seek  thee  early  :  for  when  thy  judgments  (come)  to 
the  earth,  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  learn  righteousness.  The  desire 
here  expressed  is  not  a  general  desire  for  the  knowledge  and  favour  of  God, 
but  a  special  desire  that  he  would  manifest  his  righteousness  by  appearing 
as  a  judge.  This  explanation  is  required  by  the  connexion  with  what  goes 
before  and  with  what  follows  in  this  very  verse.  Gesenius  takes  my  soul  as 
a  periphrasis  for  /.  Maurer  supposes  it  to  be  in  apposition  with  the  pronoun. 
Ewald  and  Knobel  retain  the  old  construction,  which  supplies  a  preposition 
before  TOP,  or  regards  it  as  an  adverbial  accusative  or  qualifying  noun,  cor- 
responding to  the  ablative  of  instrument  or  cause  in  Latin.  The  night  is 
mentioned,  not  as  a  figure  for  calamity  or  ignorance,  nor  as  a  time  peculiarly 
appropriate  to  meditation,  but  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  the  idea,  that  he 
feels  this  wish  at  all  times,  by  night  and  by  day.  This  shows  that  the 
recent  lexicographers  are  wrong  in  excluding  from  the  Piel  of  ^rra  the  sense 
of  seeking  in  the  morning,  seeking  early,  to  which  exclusion  it  may  also  be 
objected,  that  the  soundest  principles  of  lexicography  tend  to  the  union  and 
not  to  the  multiplication  of  roots.  The  question  whether  these  are  the  words 
of  the  Prophet,  or  of  each  of  the  people,  or  of  a  choir  or  chorus  representing 
them,  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  of  an  artificial  structure  and  a  strict 
adherence  to  rhetorical  propriety,  which  have  no  real  existence  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Prophet.  The  sentiments,  which  it  was  his  purpose  and  his 
duty  to  express,  are  sometimes  uttered  in  his  own  person,  sometimes  in  that 
of  another,  and  these  different  forms  of  speech  are  interchanged,  without  re- 
gard to  the  figments  of  an  artificial  rhetoric.  Some  give  to  mttta  its  strict 
sense  as  a  particle  of  comparison,  and  understand  the  clause  to  mean  that 
men  learn  how  to  practise  righteousness  by  imitating  God's  example.  By 
judgments,  here  as  in  the  foregoing  context,  we  can  only  understand  judicial 
providences.  The  doctrine  of  the  verse  is,  that  a  view  of  God's  severity  is 
necessary  to  convince  men  of  his  justice.  The  Septuagint  has  yniOtxt  in 
the  imperative,  which  gives  a  good  sense,  but  is  forbidden  by  the  obvious 
address  to  God  himself  throughout  the  verse. 

V.  10.  Let  the  wicked  be  favoured,  he  does  not  learn  righteousness ; 
in  the  land  of  right  he  will  do  wrong,  and  ivill  not  see  the  exaltation  of 
Jehovah.     The  reasoning  of  the   preceding  verse  is  here  continued.     As  it 


444  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI. 

was  there  said  that  God's  judgments  were  necessary  to  teach  men  righteous- 
ness, so  it  is  here  said  that  continued  prosperity  is  insufficient  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  wicked  man  will  go  on  to  do  wickedly,  even  in  the  very  place 
where  right  conduct  is  peculiarly  incumbent.  Though  the  verse  is  in  the 
form  of  a  general  proposition,  and  as  such  admits  of  various  applications, 
there  is  obvious  reference  to  the  Babylonians,  who  were  not  only  embold- 
ened by  impunity  to  do  wrong  in  the  general,  but  to  do  it  even  in  the  land 
of  right  or  rectitude,  the  holy  land,  Jehovah's  land,  where  such  trans- 
gressions were  peculiarly  offensive.  There  are  two  other  explanations  of 
rrinbs  yy*  which  deserve  attention.  The  first  understands  the  phrase  to 
mean,  in  the  midst  of  a  righteous  population,  surrounded  by  examples  of 
good  conduct.  The  other  supposes  an  allusion  not  to  moral  but  to  physical 
rectitude  or  straightness,  as  a  figure  for  prosperity.  This  last  would  make 
the  clause  a  repetition  of  the  sentiment  expressed  before  it,  viz.  that  favour 
and  indulgence  do  not  teach  men  righteousness.  But  neither  of  these  latter 
explanations  agrees  so  well  with  the  last  words  of  the  verse  as  the  one  first 
given,  according  to  which  they  represent  the  wrong-doer  as  not  knowing  or 
believing  or  considering  that  the  land,  in  which  he  practices  his  wickedness, 
belongs  to  the  most  High  God.  J.  D.  Michaelis  explains  the  closing  words 
to  mean  that  God  is  too  exalted  to  be  seen  by  them  (den  zu  erhabenen 
Gott). 

V.  11.  Jehovah,  thy  hand  is  high,  they  will  not  see;  (yes)  they  will 
see  (and  be  ashamed)  thy  zeal  for  thy  people  ;  yea,  the  fire  of  thine  enemies 
shall  devour  them.  The  tenses  in  this  verse  have  been  very  variously  and 
arbitrarily  explained.  Some  make  them  all  past,  others  all  future,  and  a  few 
all  present.  Even  the  double  future  ("jV^m  and  ltm)  is  referred  to  different 
tenses,  past  and  future,  past  and  present,  present  and  future.  They  have  not 
seen,  but  they  shall  see  ;  they  do  not  see,  but  they  shall  see  ;  they  did  not 
see,  but  they  do  see.  Some  make  itm  an  optative :  but  may  they  see  ! 
All  these  constructions  are  grammatical,  but  the  very  fact  that  so  many  are 
possible,  makes  it  advisable  to  adhere  somewhat  rigorously  to  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  forms.  As  to  FW,  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  rendered  as  a 
preterite  or  present,  as  the  one  implies  the  other  ;  but  as  to  jiMm  and 
itm,  the  safest  course  is  to  translate  them  both  alike  as  simple  futures.  The 
seeming  contradiction  instantly  explains  itself,as  being  a  kind  of  after-thought. 
They  will  not  see,  (but  yes)  they  will  see.  There  are  two  ways  of  connecting 
65  r*op  with  what  precedes.  The  obvious  construction  found  in  most  of  the 
old  versions,  makes  it  the  object  of  the  verb  immediately  before  it :  <  they 
shall  be  ashamed  of  their  zeal  against  (or  envy  of)  the  people.'  This  of 
course  supposes  cs>  nsap  to  denote  the  envy  of  the  heathen  against  Israel,  or, 
which  is   much  less   probable,  the  jealousy  of  Israel  with  respect  to  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  \\-> 

accession  of  the  Gentiles.  But  as  usage  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  interpret- 
ing the  phrase  to  mean  the  jealousy  or  zeal  of  God  himself  in  behalf  of  his 
own  people,  Gesenius  and  several  later  writers  construe  it  with  nm  and 
throw  WS^y  into  a  parenthesis,  f  they  shall  see  (and  be  ashamed)  the  zeal 
etc'  which  is  equivalent  to  saying,  *  they  shall  see  with  shame,  etc." 
Another  construction,  given  independently  by  Henderson  and  Knobel, 
construes  the  phrase  in  question,  not  as  the  object  of  a  verb  preceding,  but 
as  the  subject  of  the  verb  that  follows,  '  zeal  for  thy  people,  yea  fire  against 
thine  enemies,  shall  devour  them  (or  may  it  devour  them).'  In  favour  of 
this  construction  is  the  strict  agreement  of  the  sense  which  it  affords  with 
m  anyother  passages,  in  which  the  same  divine  acts  are  described  as  acts  of 
mercy  to  the  righteous  and  of  wrath  to  the  wicked.  (See  for  example  ch. 
1  :  27  and  the  commentary  on  it.)  It  is  also  recommended  by  the  strong 
emphatic  meaning  which  it  gives  to  C|X.  Knobel  moreover  makes  -pis  the 
object  of  the  verb  ^=J<n  and  regards  the  suffix  to  the  latter  as  an  idiomatic 
pleonasm,  which  is  not  only  arbitrary  and  extremely  harsh  (and  therefore 
not  required  by  a  few  examples  where  no  other  solution  of  the  syntax  is  ad- 
missible), but  destructive  of  a  beautiful  antithesis  between  God's  zeal  for  his 
people  and  fire  for  his  enemies.  Of  the  two  constructions,  therefore,  Hen- 
derson's is  much  to  be  preferred.  Fire  does  not  simply  denote  war  (Gesenius) 
or  sudden  death  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  but  the  wrath  of  God,  as  a  sudden,  rapid, 
irresistible,  and  utterly  destroying  agent. 

V.  12.  Jehovah,  thou  wilt  give  ns  peace,  for  even  all  our  works  thou 
hast  wrought  for  us.  This  is  an  expression  of  strong  confidence  and  hope, 
founded  on  what  has  already  been  experienced.  God  certainly  would 
favour  them  in  future,  for  he  had  done  so  already.  The  translation  of  the 
first  verb  as  a  preterite  or  present,  though  admissible  if  necessary,  cannot  be 
justified  in  such  a  case  as  this,  where  the  strict  translation  gives  a  perfectly 
good  sense,  tab  ra^n  literally  means  thou  wilt  place  to  us,  which  some  under- 
stand to  mean  appoint  or  ordain  for  us  ;  but  Gesenius  more  correctly  explains 
it  as  the  converse  of  the  idiomatic  usage  of  <ra  to  give  in  the  sense  of  placing. 
Peace  is,  as  often  elsewhere,  to  be  taken  in  the  wide  sense  of  prosperity  or 
welfare.  M,  though  omitted  in  translation  by  Gesenius  and  others,  is  emphatic, 
and  should  be  connected,  not  with  the  pronoun  or  the  verb,  as  in  the  English 
Version,  but  as  in  Hebrew  with  the  phrase  all  our  works,  as  if  he  had  said, 
even  all  our  works  i.  e.  all  without  exception.  It  is  commonly  agreed 
among  interpreters,  that  our  works  here  means  not  the  works  done  by  us  but 
the  works  done  for  us,  i.  e.  what  we  have  experienced,  or  as  Calvin  ex- 
presses it  in  French,  nos  affaires.  The  version  of  the  last  clause  in  the  text 
of  the  English  Bible  (thou  hast  wrought  all  our  works  in  us)  is  connected  with 
an  old  interpretation  of  the  verse,  as  directly  teaching  the  doctrine  of  human 


446  ".ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI. 

dependence  and  efficacious  grace.  This  translation,  however,  is  equally  at 
variance  with  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  preposition  (*•&)  and  with  the  con- 
nexion here.  The  context,  both  before  and  after,  has  respect,  not  to  spiritual 
exercises,  but  to  providential  dispensations.  It  is  not  a  little  curious  that 
while  Cocceius,  in  his  Calvinistic  zeal,  uses  this  verse  as  an  argument  against 
the  Arminian  doctrine  of  free-will,  Calvin  himself  had  long  before  declared 
that  the  words  cannot  be  so  applied.  Qui  hoc  testimonio  usi  sunt  ad  ever- 
tendum  liberum  arbitrium,  Prophetse  mentem  assecuti  non  sunt.  Verum 
quidem  est  Deum  solum  bene  agere  in  nobis,  et  quicquid  recte  instituunt 
homines  esse  ex  illius  Spiritu  ;  sed  hie  simpliciter  docet  Propheta  omnia 
bona  quibus  fruimur  ex  Dei  manu  adeptos  esse  :  unde  colligit  nullum  fore 
beneficentiae  finem  donee  plena  felicit  asaccedat.  This  brief  extract  is  at 
once  an  illustration  of  the  great  reformer's  sound  and  independent 
judgment,  and  of  the  skill  with  which  he  can  present  the  exact  and  full 
sense  of  a  passage  in  a  few  words. 

V.  13.  Jehovah,  our  God,  (other)  lords  beside  thee  have  ruled  us  ;  (but 
henceforth)  thee,  thy  name,  only  will  we  celebrate.  In  this  verse  again  there  is 
great  diversity  as  to  the  explanation  of  the  tenses.  Clericus  renders  both  the 
verbs  as  preterites,  and  understands  the  verse  as  saying,  that  even  when  the 
Jews  were  under  foreign  oppression,  they  maintained  their  allegiance  to  Je- 
hovah. Ewald  gives  the  same  sense,  but  in  reference  to  the  present  fidelity 
of  Israel  under  present  oppression.  Gesenius,  more  correctly,  distinguishes 
between  the  verbs  as  preterite  and  present.  There  is  no  good  ground, 
however,  for  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of  the  forms  as  preterite  and 
future,  which  are  faithfully  expressed  in  all  the  English  versions.  The  usual 
construction  of  the  last  clause  understands  -p  as  meaning  through  thee  i.  e. 
through  thy  favour,  by  thy  help,  we  are  enabled  now  to  praise  thy  name. 
But  Ewald,  Barnes,  and  Henderson  regard  the  pronoun  as  in  apposition 
with  thy  name,  and  the  whole  clause  as  describing  only  the  object  of  their 
worship,  not  the  means  by  which  they  were  enabled  to  render  it.  The 
construction  of  "p  is  in  that  case  somewhat  singular,  but  may  have  been  the 
only  one  by  which  the  double  object  of  the  verb  could  be  distinctly  ex- 
pressed without  the  repetition  of  the  verb  itself.  As  to  the  lords  who  are 
mentioned  in  the  first  clause,  there  are  two  opinions.  One  is,  that  they  are 
the  Chaldees  or  Babylonians,  under  whom  the  Jews  had  been  in  bondage. 
This  is  now  the  current  explanation.  The  other  is,  that  they  are  the  false 
gods  or  idols,  whom  the  Jews  had  served  before  the  exile.  Against  the  for- 
mer and  in  favour  of  the  latter  supposition  it  may  be  suggested,  first,  that 
the  Babylonian  bondage  did  not  hinder  the  Jews  from  mentioning  Jehovah's 
name  or  praising  him  ;  secondly,  that  the  whole  verse  looks  like  a  confession 
of  their  own  fault  and  a  promise  of  amendment,  rather  than  a  reminiscence 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  447 

of  their  Buffering!  J  and  thirdly,  that  there  seems  to  be  an  obvious  compari- 
son between  the  worship  of  Jehovah  as  our  God,  with  some  other  wor- 
ship and  some  other  deity.  At  the  same  time  let  it  be  observed,  that 
the  ideas  of  religious  and  political  allegiance  and  apostasy  or  of  hea- 
then rulers  and  of  idol  gods,  were  not  so  carefully  distinguished  by  the 
ancient  Jews  as  by  ourselves,  and  it  is  therefore  not  impossible  that  both 
the  kinds  of  servitude  referred  to  may  be  here  included,  yet  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  spiritual  one  must  be  considered  as  the  prominent  idea,  and  the 
only  one,  if  either  must  be  fixed  upon  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other.  An 
additional  argument,  in  favour  of  the  reference  of  this  verse  to  spiritual  rulers, 
is  its  exact  correspondence  with  the  singular  fact  in  Jewish  history,  that 
since  the  Babylonish  exile  they  have  never  even  been  suspected  of  idolatry. 
That  such  a  circumstance  should  be  adverted  to  in  this  commemorative 
poem,  is  so  natural  that  its  omission  would  be  almost  unaccountable. 

V.  14.  Dead,  they  shall  not  live  :  ghosts,  they  shall  not  rise  :  therefore 
thou  hast  visited  and  destroyed  them,  and  made  all  memory  to  perish  with 
respect  to  them.  Those  whom  we  lately  served  are  now  no  more ;  thou 
hast  destroyed  them  and  consigned  them  to  oblivion,  for  the  very  purpose 
of  securing  our  freedom  and  devotion  to  thy  service.  Most  of  the  recent 
writers  follow  Clericus  in  referring  this  verse  to  the  Babylonians  exclusively. 
Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit  apply  it  to  the  forefathers  of  the  supposed 
speakers,  who  had  perished  on  account  of  their  idolatry.  It  seems  best 
however  to  refer  it  to  the  strange  lords  of  the  foregoing  verse,  i.  e.  the  idols 
themselves,  but  with  some  allusion,  as  in  that  case,  to  the  idolatrous  op- 
pressors of  the  Jews.  The  reason  for  preferring  this  interpretation  to  that  of 
Hitzig  is,  that  the  latter  introduces  a  new  subject  which  had  not  been  previ- 
ously mentioned.  The  first  clause  may  indeed  be  rendered  as  a  general 
proposition,  the  dead  live  not,  etc. ;  but  this  still  leaves  the  transition  an 
abrupt  one,  and  the  allusion  to  the  departed  Israelites  obscure.  The  dis- 
junctive accents  which  accompany  ote  and  d^xei  also  show  that,  according 
to  the  masoretic  tradition,  these  words  are  not  the  direct  subject  of  the  verb 
but  in  apposition  with  it.  The  sense  is  correctly  given  in  the  English  Ver- 
sion :  they  are  dead,  they  shall  not  live ;  they  are  deceased,  they  shall  not 
rise.  An  attempt,  however,  has  been  made  above  to  imitate  more  closely 
the  concise  and  compact  form  of  the  original.  For  the  meaning  of  d^sbi 
vide  supra,  ch.  14  :  9.  It  is  here  a  poetical  equivalent  to  D^na,  and  may  be 
variously  rendered,  shades,  shadows,  spirits,  or  the  like.  The  common 
version  (deceased)  leaves  too  entirely  out  of  view  the  figurative  character  of 
the  expression.  Giants,  on  the  contrary,  is  too  strong,  and  could  onlv  be 
employed  in  this  connexion  in  the  sense  of  gigantic  shades  or  shadows. 
The  Targum  strangely  makes  these  terms  denote  the  worshippers  of  dead 


448  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI. 

men  and  of  giants,  i.  e.  probably  of  heroes.  The  Septuagint  gives  a  curious 
turn  to  the  sentence  by  reading  f&tn  physicians  (IcltqoI  ov  fir]  uvacTTJcovGi). 
Gesenius  needlessly  attaches  to  *,^  the  rare  and  dubious  sense  because, 
which  Ewald  regards  as  a  fictitious  one,  deduced  from  a  superficial  view  of 
certain  passages,  in  which  the  meaning  therefore  seems  at  first  sight  inap- 
propriate. The  other  sense  is  certainly  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity. 
In  this  case  the  apparent  necessity  is  done  away  by  simply  observing,  that 
therefore  may  be  used  to  introduce,  not  only  the  cause,  but  the  design  of  an 
action.  Though  the  words  cannot  mean,  thou  hast  destroyed  them  because 
they  are  dead  and  powerless,  they  may  naturally  mean,  thou  hast  destroyed 
them  that  they  might  be  dead  and  powerless.  The  same  two  meanings  are 
attached  to  the  English  phrase  for  this  reason,  which  may  either  denote 
cause  or  purpose.  The  meaning  of  the  verse,  as  connected  with  the  one 
before  it,  is  that  the  strange  lords  who  had  ruled  them  should  not  only  cease 
to  do  so,  but,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  should  cease  to  exist  or  be 
remembered. 

V.  15.  Thou  hast  added  to  the  nation,  oh  Jehovah,  thou  hast  added  to 
the  nation  ;  thou  hast  glorified  thyself;  thou  hast  put  far  off  all  the  ends 
of  the  land.  By  this  deliverance  of  thy  people  from  the  service  both  of 
idols  and  idolaters,  thou  hast  added  a  great  number  to  the  remnant  who 
were  left  in  the  Holy  Land,  so  that  larger  territories  will  be  needed  for  their 
occupation  ;  and  in  doing  all  this,  thou  hast  made  an  exhibition  of  thy  power, 
justice,  truth,  and  goodness.  Thus  understood,  the  whole  verse  is  a  grate- 
ful acknowledgment  of  what  God  had  done  for  his  suffering  people.  Some, 
on  the  contrary,  have  understood  it  as  relating  wholly  to  his  previous  judg- 
ments. Thus  DeDieu,  with  his  usual  ingenuity  and  love  of  paradox,  con- 
founds the  idea  of  adding  to  the  nation  with  that  of  gathering  a  person  to 
his  people  or  his  fathers,  a  common  idiomatic  periphrasis  for  death.  This  is 
founded  on  the  etymological  affinity  of  Ppi  and  &p«.  To  match  this  in  the 
other  clause,  he  makes  "ps  nisp  mean  the  extremities  of  the  land,  i.  e.  its 
highest  extremities  or  chief  men,  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  into  exile. 
A  more  common  explanation  of  the  verse  is  that  which  supposes  the 
last  clause  to  describe  the  exile  and  the  first  the  restoration.  To  re- 
move the  vgteqov  tiqoteqov  which  thus  arises,  it  becomes  necessary  to  make 
npii-i  a  pluperfect,  as  in  the  English  version,  which  moreover  supplies  a 
pronoun  as  the  object  of  the  verb,  and  a  preposition  before  ends.  A  much 
simpler  construction  of  the  last  clause  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted, 
which  supposes  no  ellipsis,  makes  pa  ^%P  itself  the  object  of  the  verb,  and 
identical  in  meaning  with  the  latin  fines  terrae  in  the  sense  of  boundaries, 
the  removing  of  which  further  off  denotes  of  course  territorial  enlargement. 
Junius  supplies   life  after  added  in  the  first  clause ;  J.  D.  Michaelis  and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  119 

others  supply  gifts  or  favours;  but  the  obvious  meaning  seems  to  be  that 
God  had  added  to  the  number  of  the  people,  not  by  an  aggregate  increase 
of  the  whole  nation,  but  by  the  reunion  of  its  separated  parts,  in  the  restora- 
tion of  the  exiles  from  Babylon.  The  word  *tt>  as  Knobel  well  observes, 
may  here  denote  the  remnant  left  in  Judah,  to  which  the  analogous  term  ds 
is  repeatedly  applied  by  Jeremiah.  The  enlargement  of  the  boundaries  may 
either  be  explained  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  actual  increase  and  ex- 
pected growth  of  the  nation  (ch.  49  :  19),  or  literally  understood  as  referring 
to  the  fact,  that  after  the  return  from  exile  the  Jews  were  no  longer  restricted 
to  their  own  proper  territory,  but  extended  themselves  more  or  less  over  the 
whole  country.  Knobel  gives  QT?*9?  the  specific  meaning,  thou  hast  made 
thyself  great,  i.  e.  the  king  of  a  great  nation  ;  but  the  wider  and  more  usual 
sense  is  much  to  be  preferred.  The  translation  of  the  verb  as  a  reflexive, 
rather  than  a  simple  passive,  greatly  adds  to  the  strength  of  the  expression. 

V.  16.  Jehovah,  in  distress  they  visited  thee  ;  they  uttered  a  whisper ; 
thy  chastisement  was  on  them.  It  was  not  merely  after  their  deliverance  that 
they  turned  from  idols  unto  God.  Their  deliverance  itself  was  owing  to 
their  humble  prayers.  Visit  is  here  used  in  the  unusual  but  natural  sense 
of  seeking  God  in  supplication.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  prefer  the  second- 
ary sense  of  ffinb,  incantation  (Beschworung)  ;  but  the  primary  meaning  is 
not  only  admissible  but  beautifully  expressive  of  submissive  humble  prayer, 
like  that  of  Hannah  when  she  spake  in  her  heart  and  only  her  lips  moved,  but 
her  voice  was  not  heard,  although,  as  she  said  herself,  she  poured  out  her 
soul  before  God,  which  is  the  exact  sense  of  ytpi  in  this  place.  A  like  ex- 
pression is  applied  to  prayer  in  the  title  of  Psalm  102.  Barnes  explains 
ttnb  here  to  mean  a  sighing,  a  calling  for  help,  as  if  the  two  things 
were  identical,  whereas  the  idea  of  a  call  or  cry  is  at  variance  with 
the  figurative  import  of  the  language.  This  is  one  of  the  few  cases  in 
which  the  plural  of  the  preterite  takes  a  paragogic  nun.  Whether  it  was 
meant  to  be  intensive,  as  Henderson  supposes,  or  to  affect  the  sense  in 
any  way,  may  be  doubted.  Knobel  supplies  a  preposition  before  "pWO,  and 
says  that  the  Prophet  would  have  written  mora,  but  for  the  necessity  of 
adding  the  suffix  of  the  second  person,  which  required  that  of  the  third  to  be 
separately  written  with  a  preposition.  It  is  simpler,  however,  to  supply  the 
substantive  verb  and  take  the  words  as  a  short  independent  clause.  It  is 
implied,  though  not  expressed,  that  their  prayer  was  humble  and  submissive 
because  they  felt  that  what  they  suffered  was  a  chastisement  from  God. 
Ewald,  who  usually  makes  an  advance  upon  his  predecessors,  in  the  way  of 
simple  and  exact  translation,  is  here  misled  by  his  fondness  for  critical 
emendation,  and  proposes  to  read  tjnb  as  a  verb,  and  ypx  as  a  noun  derived 
from  p**  to  press.     (In)  distress  it  was  lisped  (or  whispered)  by  them  (lab 

29 


450  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI. 

Thy  chastisement!  The  construction  thus  obtained  is  as  harsh  and  infelicit- 
ous as  the  correction  of  the  text  is  arbitrary. 

V.  17.  As  when  a  pregnant  (woman)  draws  near  to  the  birth,  she 
writhes,  she  cries  out  in  her  pangs,  so  have  we  been,  from  thy  presence,  oh 
Jehovah !  Before  we  thus  cast  ourselves  upon  thy  mercy  in  submissive 
prayer,  we  tried  to  deliver  ourselves,  but  only  to  the  aggravation  of  our 
sufferings.  The  comparison  here  used  is  not  intended  simply  to  denote  ex- 
treme pain  as  in  many  other  cases,  but  as  the  next  verse  clearly  shows, 
the  pain  arising  from  ineffectual  efforts  to  relieve  themselves,  fos,  like  the 
corresponding  English  as,  is  properly  a  particle  of  comparison,  but  con- 
stantly applied  to  time,  as  a  synonyme  of  when.  The  full  force  of  the  term 
may  be  best  expressed  in  this  case  by  combining  the  two  English  words. 
The  future  is  here  used  to  denote  a  general  fact  which  not  only  does,  but 
will  occur.  Hendewerk  translates  the  last  verb  as  a  present ;  but  it  seems 
clear  that  the  prophet  is  reverting  to  the  state  of  things  before  the  deliver- 
ance which  had  just  been  acknowledged.  Knobel,  in  accordance  with  his 
general  hypothesis  as  to  the  date  and  subject  of  the  prophecy,  applies  this 
verse  to  the  condition  of  the  Jews  who  were  left  behind  in  Palestine,  but 
the  great  majority  of  writers,  much  more  probably,  to  that  of  the  exiles. 
There  are  three  explanations  of  the  phrase  ^litttt.  Clericus  and  Hitzig 
take  it  in  its  strictest  sense  as  meaning  from  thy  presence,  i.  e.  cast  out  or 
removed  far  from  it.  Knobel,  on  the  contrary,  excludes  the  proper  local 
sense  of  the  expression  and  translates  it  on  account  of  thee,  i.  e.  because  of 
thine  anger.  Gesenius  and  Ewald  give  the  intermediate  sense  before  thee, 
in  thy  presence.  Even  in  the  cases  cited  by  Knobel,  the  evils  experienced 
are  described  as  coming  from  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  Some  of  the  older 
writers  even  give  D^as  itself  the  sense  of  anger,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary 
and  unauthorized.  The  only  way  in  which  the  question  can  be  settled  is 
by  the  application  of  the  general  principle,  that  where  a  choice  of  meaning 
is  presented,  that  is  entitled  to  the  preference  which  adheres  most  closely  to 
the  strict  sense  of  the  terms.  On  this  ground  the  translation  from  thy  pres- 
ence is  to  be  preferred  ;  but  whether  with  the  accessory  idea  of  removal, 
alienation,  or  with  that  of  infliction,  is  a  question  not  determined  by  the 
phrase  itself,  but  either  left  uncertain  or  to  be  decided  by  the  context. 

V.  18.  We  were  in  travail,  we  were  in  pain,  as  it  were  we  brought 
forth  wind.  Deliverances  we  could  not  make  the  land,  nor  would  the  in- 
habitants of  the  world  fall.  The  figure  introduced  in  the  preceding  verse 
is  here  carried  out  and  applied.  Ewald  makes  ia^  mean  as  if,  but  neither 
this  nor  as  it  were  is  fully  justified  by  usage.  Gesenius  renders  it  when  as 
in  v.  17,  but  this  requires  a  verb  to  be  supplied,  when  we  brought  forth  (it 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  451 

was)  wind.     The  general  sense  is  evident.     The  next  clause  admits  of 
several  different  constructions.     The  simplest  supplies  a  preposition  before 
Y~\x,  in  or  for  the  land.     The  one  now  commonly  adopted  is,  we  could  not 
make   the  land  safety,  i.  e.  could  not  make  it  safe  or  save  it.     The  same 
writers   generally   make  nt)93  the  passive  participle,  in  which  case  it  must 
agree,  either  with   y^a  which  is  usually  feminine,  or  with  pn*TO*  which  is 
both  feminine  and  plural.     The  possibility  of  such  constructions  does  not 
warrant  them,  much  less  require  them,  when  as  here  the  obvious  one  is  per- 
fectly  appropriate  and  in  strict  agreement  with  the   parallel  lbiP.     The 
objection  urged  to  making  n:;r:a  future  is  that  the  people  could  not  save  the 
country,  which  is  the  very  thing  the  future   was  intended  to  assert.     The 
future  form  of  the  verb  has  respect  to  the  period  described.     As  the  people 
then  might  have  said,  we  shall  not  save  the  land,  so  the  same  expression  is 
here  put  into  their  mouths  retrospectively.     The  best  equivalent  in  English 
is  the  potential  or  subjunctive  form,  we  could  not.     Gesenius  and  the  other 
recent  German  writers  understand  this  as  a  description  of  the  Holy  Land 
after  the  return  from  exile.     We  cannot  save  the  country,  and  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  land  will  not  be  born  (ibsr)  i.  e.  it  is  still  very  thinly  peopled. 
This  is  far  from  being  an  obvious  or  natural  interpretation.     The  foregoing 
context,  as  we  have  seen,  relates  to  the  period  of  captivity  itself.     The 
meaning  given  to  ^B3,  though  sustained  by  analogies   in   other  languages, 
derives  no  countenance  from   Hebrew  usage.     Nor  is  it  probable  that  the 
figure  of  parturition  would  be  here  resumed,  after  it  had  been  dropped  in  the 
preceding  member  of  the  sentence.     The  way  in  which  the  metaphors  of 
this  verse  have  been  treated  by  some  commentators  furnishes  an  instance  of 
the  perversion   and  abuse  of  archaeological    illustration.     J.  D.  Michaelis 
imagined  that  he  had  discovered  an  allusion  to  a  certain  medical  phenome- 
non of  very  rare  occurrence.    This  suggestion  is  eagerly  adopted  by  Gesenius, 
who,  not  content  with  naming  it  in  his  text,  pursues  the  subject  with  greai 
zest  in  a  note,  and  appears  to  have  called  in  the  assistance  of  his  colleague, 
the  celebrated  medical  professor  Sprengel.     From  one  or  the  other  of  these 
sources  the  details  are  copied  by  several  later  writers,  one  of  whom,  lest  the 
reader's  curiosity  should  not  be  sated,  says  that  the  whole  may  be  seen 
fully  described  in  the  books  on  obstetrics.     It  is  a  curious  fact  that  some, 
who  are  often    reluctant  to  recognise  New  Testament  doctrines  in    the 
prophecies,  can    find   there  allusions    to  the  most  extraordinary  medical 
phenomena.     The  best  comment  upon  this  obstetrical  elucidation  is  con- 
tained in  Hitzig's  caustic  observation,  that  by  parity  of  reasoning  the  allu- 
sion in  ch.  33  :  1 1  is  to  an  actual  bringing  forth  of  straw   (eine  wirkliche 
Strohgeburt) .     Knobel  has   also  pointed  out,  what  any  reader  might  dis- 
cover for  himself,  that  wind  is  here  used,  as  in  ch.  41  :  29,  Hos.  12  :  2,  as 
a  common  metaphor  for  failure,  disappointment,     bstn  is  variously  explained 


452  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVI. 

according  to  the  sense  put  upon  the  whole  verse.  Those  who  refer  it  to 
the  period  after  the  return  from  exile  regard  koo  as  equivalent  to  y-ist. 
Those  who  suppose  the  exile  itself  to  be  the  time  in  question,  understand  by 
"bzr\  the  Babylonian  empire  as  in  ch.  13  :  11. 

V.  19.   Thy  dead  shall  live,  my  corpses  shall  arise  ;  (awake  and  sing  ye 
that  dwell  in  the  dust !)  for  the  dew  of  herbs  is  thy  dew,  and  (on)  the  earth 
(on)  the  dead,  thou  wilt  cause  it  to  fall.     This  verse  is  in  the  strongest  con- 
trast with  the  one  before  it.     To  the  ineffectual  efforts  of  the  people  to  save 
themselves,  he  now  opposes  their  actual  deliverance  by  God.     They  shall 
rise  because  they  are  thy  dead,  i.  e.  thy  dead  people.     The  construction  of 
"rbzi  with  "p^aip"1  is  not  a  mere  grammatical  anomaly.     The  noun  and  suffix 
are  singular,  because  the  words  are  those  of  Israel  as  a  body.     The  verb  is 
plural,  because  the  corpse  of  Israel  included  in  reality  a  multitude  of  corpses. 
The  explanation  of  the  suffix  as  a  parogogic  syllable  is  contrary  to  usage, 
which  restricts  paragoge  to  the  construct  form.     Kimchi  supplies  a  prepo- 
sition (with  my  dead  body)  which  construction   is  adopted  in   the   English 
version  and  in  several  others,  but  is  now  commonly  abandoned  as  incongru- 
ous and  wholly  arbitrary.     Neither  the  Prophet,  nor  the  house  of  Israel,  in 
whose  name  he  is  speaking,  could  refer  to  their  own  body  as  distinct  from 
the  bodies  of  Jehovah's  dead  ones.     Awake  etc.  is  a  joyful  apostrophe  to 
the  dead,  after  which  the  address  to  Jehovah  is  resumed.     There  are  two 
interpretations  of  rVnKai,  both  ancient  and  supported  by  high  modern  author- 
ities.    The  first  gives  the  word   the   usual  sense  of  lis  light ;  the  other 
that  of  plants,  which  it  has  in  2  Kings  4 :  39.     The   first  is  found  in  the 
Targum,  Vulgate,  and  Peshito,  and  is  approved   by  Grotius.  Ewald,  Um- 
breit,   and   Gesenius  in  his  Commentary.     The  other  is  given  by  Kimchi, 
Clericus,    Vitringa,    Rosenmuller,    Maurer,  Hitzig,   and    Gesenius  in   his 
Lexicon.     To  the  former  it  may  be  objected,  that  it  leaves  the  plural  form 
unexplained,  that  it  arbitrarily  makes  light  mean  life,  and  that  it  departs 
from  the  acknowledged  meaning   of  rv-iix  in   the  only  other  place  where 
it  occurs.     The  second  interpretation,  on  the  other  hand,  assumes  but  one 
sense  of  the  word,  allows  the  plural  form  its  proper  force,  and  supposes  an 
obvious  and  natural  allusion   to  the  influence  of  dew  upon  the  growth  of 
plants.     In  either  case  the  reference  to  the  dew  is  intended  to  illustrate  the 
vivifying  power  of  God.     Gesenius  and  Ewald  both  explain  the  verbs  as 
optatives  and  the  verse  as  expressive  of  a  wish  that  God  would  raise  the 
dead  and  thus  repeople  the  now  empty  country.     This  construction,  though 
admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  has  nothing  to  entitle  it  to  preference,  when 
the  strict    interpretation   yields    a    perfectly    good   sense.      The   obvious 
meaning  of  the  words  is   an  expression  of  strong  confidence  and  hope,  or 
rather  of  prophetic  foresight,  that  God  will  raise  the  dead,  that  his  life-giving 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  453 

influence  will  be  exerted.  The  use  of  b^cn  here  is  certainly  obscure. 
Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  the  other  late  interpreters,  suppose  it  to  denote  the 
act  of  bearing,  bringing  forth,  as  the  Kal  in  v.  18  means,  according  to  tin- 
same  writers,  to  be  born.  But  if  it  there  seems  unnatural  to  suppose  a 
resumption  of  that  figure,  it  is  much  more  so  here,  where  another  figure,  that 
of  vegetation,  goes  before.  The  mere  rhetorical  objection  to  mixed  meta- 
phors, as  we  have  seen  in  other  cases,  ought  to  weigh  but  little  where  the 
sense  is  clear  ;  but  in  determining  a  doubtful  sense,  we  are  rather  to  presume 
that  a  figure  once  begun  is  continued,  than  that  it  is  suddenly  exchanged  for 
another.  An  additional  objection  to  this  exposition  is  the  incongruity  of 
making  the  earth  bring  forth  the  dead,  and  thus  putting  the  two  extremes 
of  life  into  juxtaposition.  To  avoid  this  incongruity,  Gesenius  and  Ewald 
are  obliged  to  give  bfi3,  both  here  and  in  v.  18,  not  only  the  precarious 
sense  of  bearing  and  of  being  born,  but  the  arbitrary  and  specific  one  of 
bearing  again  and  being  born  again.  Some  of  the  older  writers  make 
b^Bn  the  second  person  (which  agrees  well  with  the  previous  address  to 
God)  and  understand  the  words  to  mean  thou  wilt  cause  the  giants  to  fall 
to  the  earth.  But  the  combination  of  n^xs")  with  0"»rni  in  v.  14,  and  the 
repetition  of  the  latter  here,  decides  the  meaning  of  the  former,  as  denoting 
the  deceased,  the  dead.  Retaining  the  construction  of  b^sn  as  a  second 
person,  and  supposing  the  allusion  to  the  influence  of  dew  upon  the  growth 
of  plants  to  be  continued,  we  may  render  the  words  thus :  (upon)  the  earth, 
(upon)  the  dead  thou  wilt  cause  it  to  fall.  As  if  he  had  said,  thou  hast  a 
life-giving  influence  and  thou  wilt  exert  it  ;  as  thy  dew  makes  plants  to 
grow,  so  shall  it  make  these  dead  to  live.  That  the  ellipsis  of  the  prepo- 
sition before  *px  and  d^xbi,  although  not  without  analogy,  is  somewhat 
harsh,  must  be  admitted,  and  the  only  view  with  which  this  construction  is 
proposed  is,  that  its  difficulties  and  advantages  may  be  compared  with  those 
of  the  translation  given  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald,  the  earth  brings  forth  the 
dead.  All  these  interpretations  coincide  in  applying  the  verse  to  a  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  and  the  question  now  arises,  what  resurrection  is  referred 
to  ?  All  the  answers  to  this  question  may  be  readily  reduced  to  three.  The 
first  is,  that  the  prophet  means  the  general  resurrection  of  the  dead,  or 
according  to  an  old  rabbinical  tradition,  the  exclusive  resurrection  of  the 
righteous,  at  the  last  day.  The  second  is,  that  he  refers  to  a  resurrection  of 
the  Jews  already  dead,  not  as  an  actual  or  possible  event,  but  as  a  passion- 
ate expression  of  desire  that  the  depopulated  land  might  be  replenished  with 
inhabitants.  The  third  is,  that  he  represents  the  restoration  of  the  exiles 
and  of  the  theocracy  under  the  figure  of  a  resurrection,  as  Paul  says  the 
restoration  of  Israel  to  God's  favour  will  be  life  from  the  dead.  The 
obvious  objection  to  the  first  of  these  opinions  is,  that  a  prediction  of  the 
final   resurrection   is  as   much  out  of  place  in  this  connexion  as  the  same 


454  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI. 

expectation  seemed  to  Martha  as  a  source  of  comfort  for  the  loss  of  Lazarus. 
But  as  our  Saviour,  when  he  said  to  her,  thy  brother  shall  rise  again, 
designed  to  console  her  by  the  promise  of  an  earlier  and  a  special  resurrec- 
tion, so  in  this  case  what  was  needed  for  the  comfort  of  God's  people  was 
something  more  than  the  prospect  of  rising  at  the  day  of  judgment.  The 
choice  therefore  lies  between  the  other  two  hypotheses,  that  of  a  mere  wish 
that  the  dead  might  literally  rise  at  once,  and  that  of  a  prediction  that  they 
should  rise  soon  but  in  a  figure  (iv  Tzaoafiolfi)  as  Paul  says  of  Isaac's  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  (Heb.  11  :  19).  The  objection  to  the  first  of  these 
interpretations  is,  that  the  optative  construction  of  the  verbs,  as  we  have 
seen  already,  is  not  the  obvious  and  natural  construction,  and  ought  not  to 
be  assumed  unless  it  yields  a  better  sense  and  one  more  appropriate  in  this 
connexion.  But  so  far  is  this  from  being  the  case,  that  the  mere  expression 
of  a  wish  which  could  not  be  fulfilled  would  be  a  most  unnatural  conclusion 
of  this  national  address  to  God,  whereas  it  could  not  be  more  suitably  wound 
up,  or  in  a  manner  more  in  keeping  with  the  usage  of  the  prophecies,  than  by 
a  strong  expression  of  belief,  that  God  would  raise  his  people  from  the  dust 
of  degradation  and  oppression,  where  they  had  long  seemed  dead  though 
only  sleeping.  On  these  grounds  the  figurative  exposition  seems  decidedly 
entitled  to  the  preference.  Upon  this  allusion  to  a  resurrection  Gesenius 
fastens  as  a  proof  that  the  prophecy  could  not  have  been  written  until  after 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  had  been  borrowed  by  the  Jews  from  Zoroas- 
ter. To  this  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  the  alleged  derivation  of  the 
doctrine  is  a  figment,  which  no  authoritative  writer  on  the  history  of  opinion 
would  now  venture  to  maintain  ;  secondly,  that  the  mention  of  a  figurative 
resurrection,  or  the  expression  of  a  wish  that  a  literal  one  would  take  place, 
has  no  more  to  do  with  the  doctrinal  belief  of  the  writer,  than  any  other 
lively  figure  or  expression  of  strong  feeling;  thirdly,  that  if  a  knowledge  and 
belief  of  the  doctrine  of  a  general  resurrection  is  implied  in  these  expressions, 
the  text,  instead  of  being  Jclassisch  as  a  proof  of  later  Jewish  opinions,  is 
Jclassisch  as  a  proof  that  the  doctrine  was  known  to  Isaiah,  if  not  to  his 
contemporaries.  If  Gesenius,  believing  this  prediction  to  belong  to  the 
period  of  the  exile,  is  entitled  to  adduce  it  as  a  proof  of  what  opinions  were 
then'current,  those  who  believe  it  to  be  genuine  are  equally  entitled  to 
adduce  it  as  a  proof  of  what  was  current  in  the  days  of  Isaiah.  It  is  easy 
to  affirm  that  the  prophecy  is  known  on  other  grounds  to  be  of  later  date  ; 
but  it  is  just  as  easy  to  affirm  that  the  alleged  grounds  are  sophistical  and 
inconclusive.  Holding  this  to  be  the  truth,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the 
text  either  proves  nothing  as  to  a  general  resurrection  of  the  dead,  or  that  it 
proves  the  belief  of  such  a  resurrection  to  be  at  least  as  old  as  the  prophet 
Isaiah. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVI.  455 

V.  20.  Go,  my  people,  enter  into  thy  chambers,  and  shut  thy  doors  after 
thee,  hide  thyself  for  a  little  moment,  till  the  wrath  be  past.  Having  wound 
up  the*  expectations  of  the  people  to  a  full  belief  of  future  restoration  from 
their  state  of  civil  and  religious  death,  the  Prophet  by  an  exquisite  transition 
intimates,  that  this  event  is  not  yet  immediately  at  hand,  that  this  relief  from 
the  effects  of  God's  displeasure  with  his  people  must  be  preceded  by  the 
experience  of  the  displeasure  itself,  that  it  is  still  a  time  of  indignation,  and 
that  till  this  is  elapsed  the  promise  cannot  be  fulfilled.  This  painful  post- 
ponement of  the  promised  resurrection  could  not  be  more  tenderly  or  beau- 
tifully intimated  than  in  this  fine  apostrophe.  The  inferences  drawn  by 
certain  German  writers,  as  to  the  date  of  the  composition,  can  have  no  effect 
on  those  who  believe  that  Isaiah  was  a  prophet,  not  in  the  sense  of  a  quid- 
nunc or  a  ballad-singer,  but  in  that  of  an  inspired  revealer  of  futurity. 
The  similar  conclusion  drawn  by  Knobel  from  the  form  ian  is  equally  frivo- 
lous, it  being  commonly  agreed  at  present  that  what  are  called  Aramean 
forms  may  just  as  well  be  archaisms  as  neologisms,  since  they  may  have 
arisen,  not  from  later  intercourse  with  neighbouring  nations,  but  from  an 
original  identity  of  language.  Gesenius  and  others  understand  this  verse  as 
an  exhortation  to  the  Jews  in  Babylon  to  keep  out  of  harm's  way  during  the 
storming  of  the  city.  A  more  prosaic  close  of  a  poetical  context  could  not 
be  imagined.  Those  who  refer  v.  19  to  the  general  resurrection  understand 
the  verse  before  us  as  an  intimation  that  they  must  first  rest  in  the  grave 
until  the  time  is  come.  Such  an  allusion  is  of  course  admissible  on  the 
supposition  of  a  figurative  resurrection.  It  is  more  natural,  however,  to 
suppose  that  the  people  of  God  are  here  addressed  as  such,  and  warned  to 
hide  themselves  until  God'^  indignation  against  them  is  past.  On  this 
specific  usage  of  the  word  est,  vide  supra  ch.  10:5.  On  the  idiomatic  usage 
of  the  verbs  7fe  and  aa,  vide  supra,  ch.  22:  15.  The  textual  variation 
-prrn  and  "pb"t  is  of  no  exegetical  importance,  -prn  strictly  means  without 
thee  or  outside  of  thee,  implying  that  the  person  is  shut  in.  It  first  occurs  in 
Gen.  7  :  16,  where  it  is  said  that  God  shut  Noah  in  the  ark.  Knobel  explains 
Wfi  a-?*33  as  meaning  like  the  s?nallness  of  a  moment.  The  a  is  a  particle  of 
time,  equivalent,  or  nearly  so,  to  our  about.  The  English  Version  (as  it  were) 
is  therefore  incorrect.  The  period  of  suffering  is  described  as  very  small  in 
comparison  with  what  had  gone  before  and  what  should  follow  it,  as  Paul 
says  (Rom.  8 :  18),  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to 
be  compared  with  the  glory  xchich  shall  be  revealed  in  us. 

V.  21 .  For  behold,  Jehovah  (is)  coming  out  of  his  place,  to  visit  the  ini- 
quity of  the  inhabitant  of  the  earth  upon  him,  and  the  earth  shall  disclose  her 
blood,  and  shall  no  more  cover  her  slain.  This  is  a  reason  both  for  expect- 
ing ultimate  deliverance  and  for  patiently  awaiting  it.     The  reason  is  that 


456 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII. 


God  has  a  work  of  chastisement  to  finish,  first  upon  his  own  people,  and  then 
upon  their  enemies.  During  the  former  process,  let  the  faithful  hide  them- 
selves until  the  wrath  be  past.  When  the  other  begins,  let  them  lift  up  their 
heads,  for  their  redemption  draweth  nigh.  This  large  interpretation  of  the 
verse  is  altogether  natural  and  more  satisfactory  than  those  which  restrict  it 
either  to  the  judgments  upon  Israel  or  to  those  upon  Babylon.  On  the  latter 
the  eye  of  the  Prophet  of  course  chiefly  rests,  especially  at  last,  so  that  the 
closing  words  may  be  applied  almost  exclusively  to  the  retribution  which 
awaited  the  Chaldean  for  the  slaughter  of  God's  people.  On  the  idiomatic 
usage  of  the  plural  Dia*i  where  the  reference  is  to  murder,  vide  supra,  ch. 
1  :  15.  Rosenmiiller  and  Hitzig  understand  the  last  clause  as  a  predic- 
tion that  the  dead  should  actually  come  out  of  the  graves,  Knobel  as  a 
poetical  anticipation  of  the  same  event.  But  it  seems  far  more  natural  to 
understand  the  clause,  with  Gesenius  and  Umbreit,  as  a  simple  variation  of 
the  one  before  it.  The  blood,  which  the  earth  had  long  since  drunk  in, 
should  as  it  were  be  vomited  up,  and  the  bodies  of  the  murdered,  which  had 
long  been  buried,  should  be  now  disclosed  to  view.  It  agrees  best  with  the 
wider  meaning  put  upon  this  verse,  and  is  at  the  same  time  more  poetical, 
to  give  "pa  in  both  clauses  its  generic  sense  of  earth,  rather  than  the  specific 
one  of  land.  Instead  of  the  simple  version  slain,  Gesenius  employs  with 
good  effect  the  strong  expression  murdered  (die  Gemordeten),  as  one  of  the 
French  versions  had  done  long  before  (ses  massacres).  Without  laying 
undue  stress  on  the  mere  rhetorical  aspect  of  the  sacred  writings,  it  may 
safely  be  affirmed  that  at  the  bar  of  the  most  elevated  criticism,  the  con- 
cluding verses  of  the  chapter  now  before  us  would  at  once  be  adjudged  to 
possess  intrinsic  qualities  of  beauty  and  sublimity  (apart  from  the  accident 
of  rhythm  and  parallelism,  in  which  some  writers  find  the  essence  of  all 
poetry)  sufficient  to  brand  with  the  stigma  of  absurdity  the  judgment  that  can 
set  the  passage  down  as  the  work  of  a  deteriorated  age  or  an  inferior  writer. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 


This  chapter  is  an  amplification  of  the  last  verse  of  the  one  preceding, 
and  contains  a  fuller  statement  both  of  Israel's  chastisements  and  of  Jeho- 
vah's judgments  on  his  enemies.  The  destruction  of  the  latter  is  foretold 
as  the  slaughter  of  a  huge  sea-monster,  and  contrasted  with  God's  care  of 
his  own  people  even  when  afflicting  them,  vs.  1-5.  Hereafter  Israel  shall 
flourish,  and  even  in  the  mean  time  his  sufferings  are  far  less  than  those  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.    XXVII.  1,: 

his  oppressors,  vs.  6,  7.  The  former  is  visited  in  moderation,  for  a  time, 
and  with  the  happiest  effect,  vs.  8,  9.  The  latter  is  finally  and  totally 
destroyed,  vs.  10,  11.  This  shall  be  followed  by  the  restoration  of  the 
scattered  Jews,  vs.  T2,  13. 

V.  1.  In  that  day  shall  Jehovah  visit,  with  his  sword,  the  hard,  the 
great,  the  strong  (sword),  upon  Leviathan  the  swift  (or  flying)  serpent, 
and  upon  Leviathan  the  coiled  (or  crooked)  serpent,  and  shall  slay  the 
dragon  which  (is)  in  the  sea.  It  is  universally  agreed  that  this  is  a  predic- 
tion of  the  downfall  of  some  great  oppressive  power,  but  whether  that  of  a 
single  nation  or  of  several,  has  been  much  disputed.  Clericus  supposes 
two,  Vitringa  and  many  others  three,  to  be  distinctly  mentioned.  In  favour 
of  supposing  a  plurality  of  subjects  may  be  urged  the  distinct  enumeration 
and  description  of  the  monsters  to  be  slain.  But  the  same  form  of  expres- 
sion occurs  in  many  other  places  where  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  single 
subject  is  intended.  To  the  hypothesis  of  three  distinct  powers  it  may  be 
objected,  that  two  of  them  would  scarcely  have  been  called  Leviathan.  To 
the  general  hypothesis  of  more  than  one,  it  may  be  objected  that  by  parity 
of  reasoning  three  swords  are  meant,  viz.  a  hard  one,  a  great  one,  and  a 
strong  one.  But  even  if  three  powers  be  intended,  it  is  wholly  impossible 
to  identify  them,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  endless  variety  of  combinations 
which  have  been  suggested  ;  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Babylonia  ;  Egypt,  Baby- 
lonia, and  Tyre  ;  Assyria,  Babylonia,  and  Rome  ;  Babylonia,  Media,  Per- 
sia, etc.  etc.  Gill  thinks  the  three  meant  are  the  devil,  the  beast,  and  the 
false  prophet ;  Cocceius,  the  emperor,  the  pope,  and  the  devil.  What  is 
common  to  all  the  hypotheses  is,  that  the  verse  describes  a  power  or  powers 
hostile  and  oppressive  to  the  people  of  God.  The  most  probable  opinion, 
therefore,  is  that  this  was  what  the  words  were  intended  to  convey.  Or  if  a 
more  specific  reference  must  be  assumed,  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  nearly 
all  the  hypotheses,  which  apply  the  words  to  two  or  more  of  the  great  pow- 
ers of  the  ancient  world,  make  Babylonia  one  of  them.  From  this  induction 
we  may  safely  conclude,  that  the  leviathan  and  dragon  of  this  verse  are 
descriptive  of  a  great  oppressive  power,  with  particular  allusion  to  the  Baby- 
lonian empire,  a  conclusion  perfectly  consistent  with  the  previous  allusions 
to  the  fall  of  Babylon  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile.  Assuming 
this  to  be  the  general  meaning  of  the  verse,  that  of  its  mere  details  becomes 
either  easy  or  comparatively  unimportant.  The  word  leviathan,  which,  from 
its  etymology,  appears  to  mean  contorted,  coiled,  is  sometimes  used  to  denote 
particular  species  (e.  g.  the  crocodile),  and  sometimes  as  a  generic  term  for 
huge  aquatic  animals,  or  the  larger  kinds  of  serpents,  in  which  sense  the 
corresponding  term  "p|B  is  also  used.  They  both  appear  to  be  employed  in 
this  case  to  express  the  indefinite  idea  of  a  formidable  monster,  which  is  in 


458  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII. 


fact  the  sense  now  commonly  attached  to  the  word  dragon.  The  second 
epithet  "pnbps  means  tortuous,  either  with  respect  to  the  motion  of  the  ser- 
pent, or  to  its  appearance  when  at  rest.  Bochart  regarded  the  'EyxtXa- 
8og  of  the  Greek  mythology  as  a  corruption  of  this  Hebrew  word.  The 
other  epithet  rna  has  been  variously  explained.  Some  of  the  ancients 
confound  it  with  rp'ia  a  bar,  and  suppose  the  serpent  to  be  so  described  either 
in  reference  to  its  length,  or  stiffness,  or  straightness,  or  strength,  or  its  pene- 
trating power,  or  the  configuration  of  its  head.  J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  it  the 
sense  of  northern,  and  supposes  the  three  objects  here  described  to  be  the  three 
constellations  which  exhibit  the  appearance  and  bear  the  name  of  serpents 
or  dragons.  This  explanation,  founded  on  Job  23  :  16,  does  not  materially 
change  the  meaning  of  the  verse,  since  the  constellations  are  supposed  to  be 
referred  to,  as  connected  in  some  way  with  the  fortunes  of  great  states  and 
empires.  The  allusion  however  is  so  far-fetched  and  pedantic,  that,  al- 
though it  suits  the  taste  of  Michaelis  and  Hitzig,  who  delight  in  recondite 
interpretations,  it  will  scarcely  satisfy  the  mind  of  any  ordinary  reader.  The 
only  explanation  of  n-na  which  is  fully  justified  by  Hebrew  usage  is  that  of 
fugitive  or  fleeing,  which  may  either  be  a  poetical  equivalent  to  fleet,  or 
descriptive  of  the  monster  as  a  flying  serpent.  Hitzig  objects  to  the  suppo- 
sition of  a  single  monster,  on  the  ground  that  these  two  epithets,  flying  and 
coiled,  are  incompatible,  as  if  the  same  serpent  could  not  be  described  both 
in  motion  and  at  rest,  not  to  mention  that  the  second  term,  as  Umbreit  sug- 
gests, may  itself  be  descriptive  of  motion.  The  omission  of  any  descriptive 
epithet  with  "pan  makes  it  probable  at  least  that  it  is  not  a  new  item  in  the 
catalogue.  There  is  no  need  of  explaining  ta^  to  mean  Babylonia  as  in  ch. 
21 :  1,  since  the  expression  relates  to  the  type  not  to  the  antitype,  and  must 
be  joined  with  "psn  to  express  the  complex  idea  of  a  sea-serpent.  For  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  to  visit  upon,  vide  supra,  ch.  13:  11.  The  sword 
is  a  common  emblem  for  the  instruments  of  the  divine  vengeance.  The 
explanation  of  nttij?  as  meaning  heavy  is  not  justified  by  usage  ;  severe  or 
dreadful  does  not  suit  the  context,  as  the  other  two  epithets  denote  physical 
qualities  of  a  literal  sword.  The  word  no  doubt  means  hard-edged,  or,  as 
Lowth  expresses  it,  well-tempered. 

V.  2.  On  the  explanation  of  this  verse  depends  that  of  a  large  part  of 
the  chapter.  The  two  points  upon  which  all  turns,  are  the  meaning  of  siss  and 
the  reference  of  the  suffix  in  rib.  The  modern  writers  solve  the  latter  by 
supposing  d'na  to  be  feminine  in  this  one  place,  and  when  expressions  after- 
wards occur  which  are  inapplicable  to  a  vineyard,  regard  them  as  inaccura- 
cies or  perhaps  as  proofs  of  an  uncultivated  taste,  whereas  they  only  prove 
that  the  assumed  construction  is  a  false  one.  The  only  supposition  which 
will  meet  the  difficulties,  both  of  the  syntax   and   the  exegesis,  is  the  one 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII.  459 

adopted  by  most  of  the  old  writers,  to  wit,  that  nb  refers,  not  directly  to 
=-3,  but  to  .Jerusalem  or  the  daughter  ofZion,  i.  e.  to  the  church  or  people 
of  God  considered  u  his  spouse  (ch.  1 :  21).  This  reference  to  a  subject 
not  expreesfy  mentioned  might  be  looked  upon  as  arbitrary,  but  for  the  fact 
that  the  assumption  of  it  is  attended  with  fewer  difficulties  than  the  con- 
struction which  it  supersedes,  as  will  be  seen  below.  As  to  the  other  word, 
tradition  and  authority  are  almost  unanimous  in  giving  it  the  sense  of  sing. 
Assuming  that  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb  is  to  answer,  and  that  the 
derivative  strictly  denotes  responsive  singing,  Lowth,  Dathe,  Schnurrer.  and 
others,  have  converted  the  whole  context  to  the  end  of  v.  5,  into  a  dialogue 
between  Jehovah  and  his  vineyard.  This  fantastic  arrangement  of  the  text 
has  been  rejected  by  most  later  writers,  as  artificial,  complex,  and  at  variance 
with  the  genius  and  usage  of  Hebrew  composition,  Lowth's  eloquent 
plea  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  But  the  same  interpreters,  who  have 
relieved  the  passage  from  this  factitious  burden  and  embarrassment,  continue 
for  the  most  part  to  regard  what  follows  as  a  song,  though  not  a  dramatic 
dialogue,  because  the  people  are  commanded  in  v.  2  to  sing,  and  the  song  of 
course  must  follow.  To  this  exposition,  which  is  really  a  relic  of  the  old 
dramatic  one,  there  are  several  objections.  In  the  first  place,  no  one  has 
been  able  to  determine  with  precision  where  the  song  concludes,  some 
choosing  one  place  for  its  termination,  some  another.  This  would  of  course 
prove  nothing  in  a  clear  case,  but  in  a  case  like  this  it  raises  a  presumption 
at  the  least  that  a  song,  of  which  the  end  cannot  be  found,  has  no  beginning. 
But  in  the  next  place,  it  is  easy  to  see  why  the  end  cannot  be  easily  defined, 
to  wit,  because  there  is  nothing  in  the  next  three,  four  or  five  verses  to  dis- 
tinguish them  as  being  any  more  a  song  than  what  precedes  and  follows, 
whether  with  respect  to  imagery,  rhythm,  or  diction.  In  the  third  place, 
the  presumption  thus  created  and  confirmed  is  corroborated  further  by  the 
obvious  incongruity  of  making  the  song,  which  the  people  are  supposed  to 
sing,  begin  with  1  Jehovah  keep  it  etc.  It  is  in  vain  that  Grotius  with  his 
usual  ingenuity  explains  «&»  as  meaning  '  sing  in  the  name  or  person  of 
Jehovah/  and  that  other  writers  actually  introduce  thus  saith  the  Lord  at 
the  beginning  of  the  song.  This  is  only  admitting  indirectly  that  the 
supposition  of  a  song  is  wholly  arbitrary  in  a  case  so  doubtful,  whatever  it 
might  be  if  the  mention  of  a  song  were  more  explicit.  For  in  the  fourth 
place,  there  is  this  striking  difference  between  the  case  before  us  and  those 
which  are  supposed  to  be  analogous  (e.  g.  ch.  5:  1.  26:  1),  that  in  these 
the  verb  SMJ  and  its  derivative  noun  of  the  same  form  are  employed,  whereas 
here  the  verb  is  different  and  the  noun  song  does  not  appear  at  all.  Under 
these  circumstances,  it  would  seem  to  be  sufficient  to  take  Vt  as  a  general 
exhortation  to  sing,  without  supposing  that  the  words  of  the  song  actually 
follow,  which  is  surely  not  a  necessary  supposition.     But  in  the  fifth  place, 


460  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII. 

out  of  fifty-six  cases  in  which  the  piel  of  nas  occurs,  there  are  only  three  in 
which  the  sense  of  singing  is  conceivable,  and  of  these  three  one  (Ps. 
88:  1)  is  the  enigmatical  title  of  a  Psalm,  another  (Ex.  32:  18)  is  so 
dubious  that  the  one  sense  is  almost  as  appropriate  as  the  other,  and  the 
third  is  that  before  us.  It  is  true  the  concordances  and  lexicons  assume 
two  different  roots,  but  this  is  merely  to  accommodate  the  difficulties  of  these 
three  texts,  and  the  multiplication  of  roots  is  now  universally  regarded  as  at 
best  a  necessary  evil.  On  such  grounds  the  assumption  of  the  meaning 
sing  could  hardly  be  justified,  even  if  it  were  far  more  appropriate  to  the 
context  than  the  common  one.  But  in  the  last  place,  while  the  supposition 
of  a  song,  as  we  have  seen,  embarrasses  the  exposition,  the  usual  meaning 
of  the  verb  nss  is  perfectly  appropriate.  This  meaning  is  to  afflict,  and 
especially  to  afflict  in  an  humbling  and  degrading  manner.  This  may  seem 
to  be  utterly  at  variance  with  the  context  as  it  is  commonly  explained  ;  but 
the  common  explanation  rests  on  the  supposititious  meaning  of  the  verb,  and 
cannot  therefore  be  alleged  in  favor  of  that  meaning.  On  the  usual  hypothe- 
sis, the  verse  exhorts  the  people  to  sing  to  the  vineyard  or  the  church ;  on 
the  one  now  proposed  it  challenges  her  enemies  to  do  their  worst,  declaring 
that  God  still  protects  her.  This  explanation  of  the  verse  agrees  well  with 
the  distinct  allusions  to  the  punishment  of  Israel  in  vs.  4, 7,  8, 9,  which  would 
be  comparatively  out  of  place  in  a  song  of  triumph  or  gratulation.  Against 
this  explanation  of  is?,  and  of  the  whole  verse,  lies  the  undivided  weight 
of  tradition  and  authority,  so  far  as  I  can  trace  the  exposition  of  the  passage, 
the  only  writer  who  adopts  the  sense  afflict  being  Gousset  (or  Gussetius)  in 
his  Comment.  Ebr.  as  cited  by  Gill.  So  unanimous  a  judgment  might  be 
looked  upon  as  perfectly  decisive  of  the  question  but  for  two  considerations ; 
first,  that  the  proposed  interpretation  removes  a  variety  of  difficulties,  not  by 
forsaking  usage  but  by  returning  to  it ;  and  secondly,  that  none  of  the 
interpreters  consulted  seem  to  have  adverted  to  the  facts  already  stated,  with 
respect  to  the  usage  of  nss.  But  besides  the  objection  from  tradition  and 
authority,  another  may  be  urged  of  a  grammatical  nature,  viz.  the  unusual 
connexion  of  the  verb  with  its  object  not  directly  but  by  means  of  the  prepo- 
sition b.  To  this  it  can  only  be  replied,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  choice 
presented  is  a  choice  of  difficulties,  and  that  those  attending  the  construction 
now  in  question  seem  to  be  less  than  those  attending  any  other  ;  in  the  next 
place,  that  although  this  verb  does  not  elsewhere  take  the  preposition  b  after 
it,  there  are  many  cases  in  which  other  active  verbs  are  separated  from  their 
objects  by  it,  the  verb  then  denoting  the  mere  action,  and  the  b  pointing  out 
the  object  as  to  which,  or  with  respect  to  which,  it  is  performed  ;  and  in  the 
last  place,  that  the  b  may  have  been  rendered  necessary  here  because  the 
nouns  before  the  verb  are  also  in  some  sense  its  objects.  The  latest  German 
writers,  it  is  true,  construe  "wbtj  ens  as  an  absolute  nominative,  (as  to  the  vine- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   XXVII.  461 

yard  of  wine)  or  as  the  subject  of  a  verb  understood  (there  shall  be  a  vine- 
yard of  wine)  but  these  are  nx-iv  expedients  to  explain  the  nb,  and  must  of 
course  give  way  to  any  simpler  method  of  accomplishing  that  purpose.  As 
the  result  of  this  investigation,  we  may  now  translate  the  verse  as  follows. 
In  that  day,  as  a  vineyard  of  wine,  ajflict  her,  or,  in  that  day  afflict  for  her 
the  vineyard  of  wine.  It  is  then  a  defiance  or  permission  of  the  enemies  of 
the  church  to  afflict  her,  with  an  intimation  that  in  carrying  out  this  idea, 
the  expressions  will  be  bdrrowed  from  the  figure  of  a  vineyard,  as  in  ch. 
5:  1-6*.  isn  strictly  denotes  fermentation,  then  fermented  liquor,  and  is 
used  as  a  poetical  equivalent  to  ftj.  It  has  been  objected  that  this  idea  is 
involved  in  that  of  a  vineyard,  but  such  apparent  pleonasms  are  common  in 
all  languages,  as  when  we  speak  of  a  well  of  water  or  a  coal  of  fire. 
Besides  did  seems  to  have  originally  had  a  latitude  of  meaning  not  unlike 
that  of  orchard  in  English,  and  we  actually  read  of  a  tvn  nna  (not  a  vine- 
yard but  an  olive-yard)  Josh.  15:5.  "njlj  may  therefore  have  been  added 
to  complete  the  phrase,  or  to  preclude  all  doubt  as  to  the  meaning, 
either  of  which  suppositions  renders  it  superfluous  to  borrow  the  sense  red 
wine  from  the  Arabic,  as  Kimchi  does,  and  to  assume  that  the  Hebrews  seta 
special  value  upon  this  sort.  Much  less  is  it  necessary  to  amend  the  text 
by  reading  inn  tfto,  pleasant  or  beloved  vineyard.  The  analogous  expres- 
sion tomans  Amos  5:11,  only  makes  a  change  in  this  place  more  imprb- 
bable,  not  to  mention  the  endless  license  of  conjecture,  which  would  be 
introduced  into  the  criticism  of  the  text,  by  adopting  the  principle  that 
phrases,  which  partially  resemble  one  another,  must  be  made  to  do  so  alto- 
gether. As  a  closing  suggestion,  not  at  all  necessary  to  the  exposition,  but 
tending  to  explain  in  some  degree  the  form  of  the  original,  it  may  here  be 
added,  that  the  masoretic  interpunction  may  have  been  intended  to  suggest 
an  interval  of  time  between  the  clauses,  as  if  he  had  said,  in  that  day  (shall 
this  come  to  pass,  but  in  the  meantime)  afflict  her  etc. 

V.  3.  I  Jehovah  (am)  keeping  her;  every  moment  I  will  water  her ; 
lest  any  hurt  her,  night  and  day  will  1  keep  her.  That  is,  in  spite  of  the 
afflictions  which  befall  her  I  will  still  preserve  her  from  destruction.  The 
antecedent  of  the  pronouns  is  the  same  as  in  v.  2,  viz.  the  church  or  nation 
considered  as  a  vineyard.  B**y$  literally  means  at  moments  or  as  to 
moments,  but  its  sense  is  determined  by  the  analogous  »*5ga&  every  morning. 
Kimchi  takes  tt*te  as  a  noun>  m  which  he  is  followed  by  some  later  writers, 
who  explain  the  clause  to  mean,  lest  one  hurt  a  leaf  of  her,  or,  lest  a  leaf  of 
her  be  wanting.  But  the  want  of  any  usage  to  justify  such  an  explanation 
of  ^pEp,  and  the  construction  of  the  same  verb  in  v.  1  with  the  preposition 
b?,  leave  no  doubt  that  the  usual  explanation  is  the  true  one.  To  visit  upon 
has  here  its  common  meaning  of  inflicting  evil  upon,  but  without  any  special 


462  ISAIAH.  CHAP.  XXVII. 

reference  to  crime  or  punishment.  As  the  expression  is  a  relative  one,  it 
must  here  be  understood  according  to  the  context,  as  denoting  fatal  or  at 
least  excessive  injury. 

V.  4.  Of  all  the  senses  put  upon  this  difficult  verse,  there  are  only  two 
which  can  be  looked  upon  as  natural  or  probable.  The  first  may  be  para- 
phrased as  follows  :  it  is  not  because  I  am  cruel  or  revengeful  that  I 
thus  afflict  my  people,  but  because  she  is  a  vineyard  overrun  with 
thorns  or  briers,  on  account  of  which  I  must  pass  through  her  and 
consume  her  (i.  e.  burn  them  out  of  her).  The  other  is  this :  I  am  no 
longer  angry  with  my  people ;  oh  that  their  enemies  (as  thorns  and  briers) 
would  array  themselves  against  me,  that  I  might  rush  upon  them  and  con- 
sume them.  This  last  is  preferred  by  most  of  the  later  writers.  The 
objection  that  no  longer  has  to  be  supplied  is  of  little  weight.  A  more 
important  one  is  that  the  feminine  suffix  is  referred  to  the  masculine  nouns 
■naaj  and  rvvti.  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  the  feminine  in 
Hebrew  often  corresponds  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  neuter ;  and  secondly,  that 
a  free  use  of  the  feminine,  where  the  masculine  might  have  been  expected,  is 
characteristic  of  this  passage.  See  particularly  v.  1 1  below,  to  which  some 
would  add  the  application  of  the  feminine  pronoun  throughout  the  passage 
to  the  masculine  noun  an  3.  This  grammatical  peculiarity,  under  other  cir- 
cumstances, would  no  doubt  have  been  alleged  as  the  mark  of  a  different 
writer.  But  if  the  author  of  ch.  xxiv-xxvn  can  use  expressions  in  ch. 
xxvn  which  he  does  not  use  in  the  others,  why  may  not  Isaiah  as  the  author 
of  the  whole  book  exhibit  similar  peculiarities  in  different  parts  of  a  col- 
lection so  extended  ?  It  is  important  that  the  reader  should  take  every 
opportunity  to  mark  the  arbitrary  nature  of  the  proofs,  by  which  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  prophecies  has  been  assailed,  and  the  strange  conclusions  to 
which  they  would  lead,  if  applied  with  even-handed  justice.  The  objection 
to  the  first  interpretation  of  the  verse  is,  that  it  puts  a  forced  construction  on 
the  words  "b  "pa  nan,  and  explains  i^rfl  ^a  in  a  manner  not  consistent  with 
the  usage  of  the  phrase.  Lowth  and  the  others  who  suppose  a  dramatic 
structure  are  obliged  to  read  nan  with  the  Seventy,  and  to  make  this  verse  a 
complaint  of  the  vineyard  that  it  has  no  wall,  and  an  expression  of  its  wish 
that  it  had  a  thorn-hedge,  to  which  God  replies  that  he  would  still  pass 
through  it.  Schnurrer  however  makes  even  the  last  clause  the  words  of  the 
vineyard,  by  arbitrarily  supplying  when  they  say,  i.  e.  when  my  enemy 
says,  I  will  march  against  it,  etc. 

V.  5.  Or  let  him  lay  hold  of  my  strength  and  make  •peace  with  me  ; 
peace  let  him  make  with  me.  The  verbs  are  properly  indefinite  (let  one 
takehold  etc.)  but  referring  to  the  enemy  described  in  the  preceding  verse 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVII.  463 

as  thorns  and  briers,  t*)?^  commonly  denotes  a  strong  place  or  fortress,  and 
is  here  understood  by  most  interpreters  to  signify  a  refuge  or  asylum,  with 
allusion  to  the  practice  of  laying  hold  upon  the  altar.  Vitringa  even  goes 
so  far  as  to  suppose  that  the  horns  of  the  altar  are  themselves  so  called 
because  the  strength  of  certain  animals  is  in  their  horns.  Lowth  gives  the 
word  the  sense  of  strength  afforded  or  protection.  The  general  meaning  is 
the  same  in  either  case,  viz.  that  the  alternative  presented  to  the  enemy  is 
that  of  destruction  or  submission.  The  abbreviated  future  is  employed  as 
usual  to  express  a  proposition.  By  varying  the  translation  of  the  futures, 
the  sentence  may  be  made  more  pointed  :  let  him  make  peace  (or  if  he 
will  make  peace)  he  shall  make  peace.  But  there  is  no  sufficient  reason 
for  the  variation,  and  the  imperative  meaning  of  ruayi  seems  to  be  determined 
by  that  of  pirn.  Of  the  various  senses  ascribed  to  is  (such  as  unless,  oh 
that  if  etc.)  the  only  one  justi6ed  by  usage  is  the  disjunctive  sense  of  or. 
Lowth's  dramatic  arrangement  of  the  text  assigns  the  first  clause  to  Jehovah 
and  the  second  to  the  vineyard.  J.  Ah!  let  her  rather  take  hold  of  my 
protection.  V.  Let  him  make  peace  with  me !  Peace  let  him  make  with 
me.  If  the  thorns  and  briers  of  v.  4  be  referred  to  the  internal  condition  of 
the  church,  this  may  be  understood  as  having  reference  to  the  church  itself, 
which  is  then  called  upon  to  make  its  peace  with  God  as  the  only  means 
of  escaping  further  punishment.  Gesenius  speaks  of  the  repetition  and  in- 
version in  the  last  clause  as  a  very  imperfect  kind  of  parallelism  extremely 
common  in  the  Zabian  books  ! 

V.  6.  (In)  coming  (days)  shall  Jacob  take  root,  Israel  shall  bud  and 
blossom,  and  they  shall  Jill  the  face  of  the  earth  with  fruit.  The  con- 
struction of  the  first  clause  in  the  English  Bible  (them  that  come  of  Jacob 
shall  he  cause  to  take  root)  is  forbidden  by  the  collocation  of  the  words,  and 
by  the  usage  of  the  verb,  which  always  means  to  take  root.  The  same 
remark  applies  to  another  construction  (them  that  come  to  Jacob)  which 
applies  the  words  to  the  conversion  of  the  gentiles.  If  there  were  any 
sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  masoretic  interpunction,  the  sentence 
might  be  thus  arranged  with  good  effect :  they  that  come  (i.  e.  the  next 
generation)  shall  take  root ;  Jacob  shall  bud;  Israel  shall  blossom  etc.  It 
is  best  however  to  retain  the  usual  construction  indicated  by  the  accents. 
«6a  may  possibly  agree  with  binkr  as  a  collective  ;  but  as  the  other  verbs 
are  singular,  the  plural  form  of  this  appears  to  imply  a  reference  to  both 
names,  though  belonging  to  one  person.  Or  as  aba  is  both  an  active 
and  a  neuter  verb,  it  may  be  construed  with  the  plural  noun  *i*,  the  face  of 
the  world  shall  be  filled  with  fruit,  bsn  does  not  mean  the  land  of  Israel, 
but  the  world,  the  whole  expression  being  strongly  metaphorical. 


464  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII. 

V.  7.  Like  the  smiting  of  his  smiter  did  he  smite  him,  or  like  the  slay- 
ing of  his  slain  was  he  slain?  Having  declared  in  the  preceding  verse  that 
Israel  should  hereafter  flourish,  he  now  adds  that  even  in  the  meantime  he 
should  suffer  vastly  less  than  his  oppressors.  Negation,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  is  expressed  by  interrogation.  Did  the  Lord  smite  Israel  as  he  smote 
his  smiters,  or  slay  him  as  his  murderers  were  slain  ?  This  is  now  com- 
monly agreed  to  be  the  meaning,  although  some  of  the  older  writers  under- 
stand the  verse  as  asking,  whether  God  smote  Israel  as  his  oppressors  smote 
him,  which  would  yield  a  good  sense  but  one  less  suited  to  the  context.  To 
make  the  parallelism  perfect,  wn  (his  slain)  should  be  ^yi  (his  slayers)  ; 
but  this,  so  far  from  being  a  defect,  is  a  beauty,  since  Israel  could  not  have 
been  said  to  be  slain  without  destroying  the  force  of  the  comparison.  The 
suffix  in  tf*£$!  is  to  be  referred  to  the  oppressors  or  the  enemy. 

V.  8.  In  measure,  by  sending  her  away,  thou  dost  contend  with  her. 
He  removes  her  by  his  hard  wind  in  the  day  of  the  east  wind.  The  nega- 
tion implied  in  the  preceding  verse  is  here  expressed  more  distinctly.  The 
Prophet  now  proceeds  to  show  that  Israel  was  not  dealt  with  like  his  enemies, 
by  first  describing  what  the  former  suffered,  then  what  the  latter.  Israel 
was  punished  moderately,  and  for  a  time,  by  being  removed  out  of  his  place, 
as  if  by  a  transient  storm  or  blast  of  wind.  Of  the  numberless  senses  put 
upon  nstoaa,  none  is  so  good  in  itself,  or  so  well  suited  to  the  context,  as 
the  one  handed  down  by  tradition,  which  explains  it  as  a  reduplicated  form 
of  nxG  strictly  denoting  a  particular  dry  measure,  but  here  used  to  express 
the  general  idea  of  measure  i.  e.  moderation.  The  meaning  measure  for 
measure,  i.  e.  in  strict  justice,  is  preferred  by  some,  but  this  would  either  do 
away  with  the  comparison  with  Israel  and  his  enemies,  or  imply  that  the 
latter  suffered  more  than  they  deserved.  The  feminine  suffixes  must  be 
referred  to  the  church  or  nation  as  a  wife,  which  agrees  well  with  the  verb 
rtar,  used  in  the  law  to  denote  repudiation  or  divorce.  The  same  verb  is 
also  used  to  signify  the  sending  down  of  judgments  upon  men,  which  sense 
some  prefer  in  this  case,  and  refer  the  suffix  both  in  this  word  and  the  next  to 
the  stroke  or  punishment.  In  sending  it  upon  them  thou  dost  strive  with  it,  or 
try  to  mitigate  it.  But  the  other  explanation  is  more  natural,  and  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  explicitly  intimating  the  precise  form  of  the  punishment  endured. 
The  change  of  person  in  the  last  clause  is  abrupt,  but  of  too  frequent  occur- 
rence to  excite  surprise.  fi$n  is  interpreted  by  Kimchi  as  synonymous  with 
-i^Wn  to  remove  or  take  away.  Its  object  is  to  be  supplied  from  the  first 
clause ;  its  subject  is  Jehovah.  The  east  wind  is  mentioned  as  the  most 
tempestuous  in  Palestine.  The  day  of  the  east  wind  is  supposed  by  some 
to  denote  the  season  of  the  year  when  it  prevails ;  but  it  is  rather  used  to 
intimate  the  temporary  nature  of  the  chastisement,  as  if  he  had  said,  one 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII.  465 

day  when  the  east  wind  chanced  to  blow.  The  first  rjn  is  by  some  trans- 
lated spirit,  and  supposed  to  be  expressive  of  the  divine  displeasure  ;  but  it 
is  not  probable  that  the  word  would  be  so  soon  used  in  a  different  sense, 
and  the  very  repetition  adds  to  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  sentence,  a 
strong  wind  in  the  day  of  the  east  wind.  3*1R  might  be  taken  as  a  future 
proper ;  but  the  use  of  the  preterite  in  the  next  clause  seems  to  show,  that 
both  were  meant  to  be  descriptive  presents. 

V,  9.  Therefore  (because  his  chastisement  was  temporary  and  remedial 
in  design)  by  this  (affliction)  shall  Jacob's  iniquity  be  expiated  (i.,e.  purged 
away),  and  this  is  all  (its)  fruit  (or  intended  effect),  to  take  away  his  sin. 
(as  will  appear)  in  his  placing  all  the  stones  of  the  (idolatrous)  altar  like 
limestones  dashed  in  pieces,  (so  that)  groves  and  solar  images  (or  images  of 
Ashtoreth  and  Baal)  shall  arise  no  more.  The  contrast  between  Israel 
and  Babylon  is  still  continued.  Having  said  that  the  affliction  of  the  for- 
mer was  but  moderate  and  temporary,  he  now  adds  that  it  was  meant  to 
produce  a  most  beneficent  effect,  to  wit,  the  purgation  of  the  people  from 
the  foul  stain  of  idolatry,  ^r^  though  it  strictly  means  shall  be  atoned 
for,  is  here  metonymically  used  to  denote  the  effect  and  not  the  cause,  puri- 
fication and  not  expiation.  In  the  very  same  way  it  is  applied  to  the  cleans- 
ing of  inanimate  objects.  There  is  no  need  of  rendering  )zh  either  but  or 
because,  as  the  strict  and  usual  meaning,  though  less  obvious,  is  perfectly 
appropriate.  As  the  punishment  was  moderate  and  temporary,  it  was 
therefore  not  destructive  but  remedial.  Some  understand  by  this,  the  act 
described  in  the  last  clause,  viz.  that  of  destroying  the  idolatrous  altar.  But 
the  preference  is  always  due  in  such  constructions  to  an  antecedent  literallv 
going  before,  i.  e.  already  mentioned.  Besides,  the  destruction  of  the  idols 
could  not  be  the  cause  of  the  purification  which  produced  it,  unless  we  take 
^Ba*1  in  the  strict  sense  of  atonement,  which  would  be  incongruous,  and  incon- 
sistent with  the  teachings  of  Scripture  elsewhere,  not  to  mention  that  in 
that  case  the  moral  effect  of  the  captivity  is  not  described  at  all.  The  sense 
required  by  the  connexion  is,  not  that  the  breaking  of  the  altars,  as  a  sponta- 
neous act,  atoned  for  Israel's  previous  idolatry,  but  that  the  exile  cured  thQu 
of  that  vice,  and  thereby  led  to  the  breaking  of  the  altars.  The  construction. 
this  is  all  the  fruit  of  the  removal  of  his  sin,  affords  an  incongruous  and 
inappropriate  sense,  viz.  that  the  only  effect  of  this  great  revolution  was  the 
breaking  of  the  idol  altars.  The  true  construction  is  the  one  pointed  out  bv 
the  disjunctive  accent  under  "he,  which  marks  it  as  the  subject  of  the  propo- 
sition of  which  Idti  is  the  predicate.  Some  refer  the  suffix  in  fattoa  to  Jeho- 
vah or  the  enemy,  and  the  whole  clause  to  his  demolition  of  the  altar  at  the 
conquest  of  Jerusalem.  But  besides  the  arbitrary  change  of  subject,  this 
would  seem  to  refer  the  moral  improvement  of  the  exiles,  not  to  their  afflic- 

30 


466  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII. 

tion,  but  to  the  destruction  of  their  idols  at  Jerusalem,  which,  even  if  con- 
sistent with  the  fact,  would  be  irrelevant  in  this  connexion,  where  the  Pro- 
phet is  showing  the  beneficent  effects  of  the  removal  of  the  people.  That 
the  altar  is  not  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  is  apparent  from  the  mention  of  the 
idols  in  the  last  clause.  (For  the  meaning  of  D^aan  and  cn^N,  vide  supra, 
ch.  17 :  8.)  Cocceius  seems  to  understand  the  verse  as  a  prediction  that 
the  Jews  should  no  longer  pay  a  superstitious  regard  to  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem. By  T^t5*  we  may  either  understand  some  kind  of  stone  commonly 
used  in  building,  or  the  fragments  of  stone  and  mortar  scattered  by  the 
demolition  of  an  altar,  wbj  xb  may  either  mean  shall  not  rise  again  or 
shall  stand  no  more,  both  implying  their  complete  destruction.  The  pro- 
phetic description  which  this  verse  involves  was  fully  and  gloriously  verified 
in  history. 

V.  10.  For  a  fenced  (or  fortified)  city  shall  be  desolate,  a  dwelling 
broken  up  and  forsaken  like  the  wilderness.  There  shall  the  calf  feed, 
and  there  shall  it  lie  and  consume  her  branches.  Here  begins  the  other 
part  of  the  comparison.  While  Israel  is  chastised  in  measure  and  with  the 
happiest  effect,  his  oppressors  are  given  up  to  final  desolation.  This  expla- 
nation of  the  verse,  as  referring  to  Babylon,  is  strongly  recommended  by  the 
fact,  that  the  comparison  otherwise  remains  unfinished,  only  one  side  of  it 
having  been  presented.  Apart  from  this  consideration,  there  are  certainly 
strong  reasons  for  supposing  the  city  meant  to  be  Jerusalem  itself.  One  of 
these  reasons  is,  that  the  figure  of  a  vineyard  seems  to  be  still  present  to  the 
writer's  mind,  at  the  close  of  this  verse  and  throughout  the  next,  although 
the  terms  used  admit  of  a  natural  application  to  the  figure  of  a  tree.  Another 
reason  is,  that  the  desolation  here  described  is  not  so  total  as  that  threatened 
against  Babylon  in  ch.  13 :  19-22,  where  instead  of  saying  it  shall  be  a 
pasture,  it  is  said  expressly  that  it  shall  not  even  be  frequented  by  flocks  or 
herds.  But  these  two  places  may  have  reference  to  different  degrees  of 
desolation.  In  favour  of  the  reference  to  Babylon  may  be  alleged  the  natu- 
ral consecution  of  the  twelfth  verse  upon  that  hypothesis.  On  the  whole, 
tl#  question  may  be  looked  upon  as  doubtful,  but  as  not  materially  affecting 
the  interpretation  of  the  chapter,  since  either  of  the  two  events  supposed 
to  be  foretold  would  be  appropriate  in  this  connexion,  n^aia  properly 
means  sent  away,  but  seems  to  be  applied  in  ch.  16 :  1  to  a  bird's  nest,  the 
/occupants  of  which  are  scattered.  The  whole  phrase  here  may  suggest  the 
idea  of  a  family  or  household  which  is  broken  up  and  its  residence  forsaken. 
rpssj&  is  by  some  understood  to  mean  its  heights  or  hills ;  but  the  more 
usual  sense  of  branches  is  entirely  appropriate.  This  may  be  understood  of 
the  vegetation  springing  up  among  ruins ;  but  it  seems  best  to  refer  it  to  the 
image  of  a  tree,  which  is  distinctly  presented  in  the  following  verse.     Ac- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII.  467 

cording  to  Vitringa,  the  calf  im-rins  pious  men  who  grow  in  spiritual  strength, 
to  which  interpretation  we  may  apply  the  words  of  the  same  excellent  writer, 
in  commenting  upon  Jerome's  notion,  that  the  devil  in  v.  1  is  called  a  bar 
because  he  imprisons  many  souls.  Saepe  mihi  mirari  contingit,  homines 
ejusmodi  cogitationes  aut  loquendi  formas  imputare  Spiritui  Sancto,  quas  sibi 
vir  sapiens  imputari  nollet. 

V.  11.  In  the  withering  of  its  boughs  (or  when  its  boughs  are  withered) 
they  shall  be  broken  off,  women  coming  and  burning  them ;  because  it  is 
not  a  people  of  understanding,  therefore  its  creator  shall  not  pity  it,  and 
its  maker  shall  not  have  mercy  on  it.  The  destruction  of  Babylon  is  still 
described,  but  under  the  figure  of  a  tree,  whose  branches  are  withered  and 
cast  into  the  fire.  Women  are  mentioned,  not  in  allusion  to  the  weakness  of 
the  instruments  by  which  Babylon  was  to  be  destroyed,  but  because  the  gath- 
ering of  firewood  in  the  east  is  the  work  of  women  and  children.  m-pjtE  is  not 
simply  setting  on  fire,  but  making  afire  of,  or  burning  up.  The  construc- 
tion of  this  clause  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  absolute  genitive  in 
Greek  and  ablative  in  Latin.  The  last  clause  contains  a  double  instance  of 
litotes  or  meiosis.  According  to  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  not  wise  here 
means  foolish  in  the  strongest  sense,  and  God's  not  pitying  and  having  mercy 
is  equivalent  to  his  being  very  wroth  and  taking  vengeance.  vs£,  which 
usually  means  a  harvest,  in  a  few  places  seems  to  have  the  sense  of  a  bough 
or  of  boughs  collectively.  The  feminine  pronouns  in  the  first  clause  must 
refer  to  w  or  bna  understood ;  the  masculine  pronouns  of  the  last  clause 
refer  of  course  to  ta|. 

V.  12.  And  it  shall  be  in  that  day,  that  Jehovah  shall  beat  off  (or 
gather  in  his  fruit),  from  the  channel  of  the  river  to  the  stream  of  Egypt,  and 
ye  shall  be  gathered  one  by  one  (or  one  to  another)  oh  ye  children  of  Israel. 
To  the  downfall  of  Babylon  he  now  adds,  as  in  ch.  11:  1,  its  most  important 
consequence,  viz.  the  restoration  of  the  Jews.     ~r.n  is  to  beat  fruit  (and  par- 
ticularly olives)  from  the  tree.     (Vide  supra,  ch.  17 :  6).     Henderson  here 
translates  "Jin.)  shall  have  an  olive-harvest.     The  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed 
is  that  of  a  careful  and  complete  ingathering.     B^isp)  bna  is  explained  by 
some  of  the  older  writers  as  denoting  the  great  valley  of  the  Nile  ;  by  others, 
the  Nile  itself;  but  it  is  now  commonly  agreed  to  signify  the  Wady  Elarish, 
anciently  called  Rhinocorura,  which  name  is  given  to  it  here  by  the  Septua- 
gint.    The  river  is  as  usual  the  Euphrates.     The  simple  meaning  of  the  whole 
expression  is,  from  Assyria  to  Egypt,  both  which  are  expressly  mentioned  in 
the  next  verse,     "Jfix  is  properly  the  construct  form,  but  occurs  in  several 
places  as  the  absolute.     One  of  these  places  is  Zech.  11:7,  from  which  it 
cannot  be  inferred,  however,  that  this  use  of  the  form  betrays  a  later  age,  for 


463 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVII. 


it  occurs  not  only  in  2  Sam.  17  :  22,  but  in  Gen.  48:  22.  Gesenius  puts 
upon  this  verse  the  forced  construction,  that  the  whole  land,  as  possessed  of 
old  by  David  and  Solomon,  should  be  repeopled  as  abundantly  and  suddenly 
as  if  men  fell  from  the  trees  like  olives.  Having  given  this  gratuitous  per- 
version of  a  natural  and  simple  metaphor,  he  then  apologizes  for  it  as 
offensive  to  our  taste  (fur  unseyen  Ceschmackanstossig),  no  unfair  sample  of 
the  way  in  which  the  sacred  writers  are  sometimes  made  to  suffer  for  the  er- 
roneous judgment  and  bad  taste  of  their  interpreters.  The  later  writers  are 
almost  unanimous  in  setting  this  construction  of  the  words  aside  and  giving 
them  their  true  sense,  which  is  not  only  the  obvious  one,  but  absolutely  re- 
quired by  the  phrase  "inx  "inxb,  which  cannot  mean  the  sudden  streaming  in  of 
a  great  multitude,  but  must  denote  the  thorough  and  complete  ingathering  of 
what  might  otherwise  be  lost  or  left  behind.  The  precise  sense  of  this  Hebrew 
phrase  is  not  well  expressed  by  the  English  one  by  one,  which  seems  to  rep- 
resent the  process  as  a  gradual  one.  It  rather  denotes  one  to  one,  i.  e.  in 
our  idiom,  one  to  another,  all  together,  or  without  exception.  From  what 
has  been  already  said  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  boundaries  named  are  not  in- 
tended to  define  the  territory  which  should  be  occupied  by  those  returning, 
but  the  regions  whence  they  should  return,  which  explanation  is  confirmed 
moreover  by  the  explicit  terms  of  the  next  verse. 

V.  13.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass)  in  that  day,  (that)  a  great 
trumpet  shall  be  blown,  and  they  shall  come  that  vjere  lost  (or  wandering)  in 
the  land  of  Assyria,  and  those  cast  out  (or  exiled)  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
and  shall  bow  down  to  Jehovah,  in  the  holy  mountain,  in  Jerusalem,  The 
same  event  is  here  described  as  in  the  verse  preceding,  but  with  a  change  of 
figure.  What  is  there  represented  as  a  gathering  of  olives  by  beating  the 
tree,  is  now  represented  as  a  gathering  of  men  by  the  blast  of  a  trumpet, 
which  here  takes  the  place  of  the  signal-pole  or  flag  in  ch.  11  :  12.  This 
variety  of  forms,  in  which  the  same  idea  is  expressed,  clearly  shows  the 
whole  description  to  be  figurative.  Assyria  and  Egypt  may  be  either  put 
for  foreign  countries  generally,  or  with  particular  allusion  to  the  actual  emi- 
gration and  dispersion  of  the  Jews  in  these  two  regions.  Assyria  may  here 
be  used  as  a  comprehensive  term,  in  order  to  include  both  the  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  deportations.  For  although  the  ten  tribes  never  were  restored, 
individual  members  of  them  found  their  way  back  with  the  Jews  from  Baby- 
lon. On  the  whole,  however,  it  is  probable  that  Egypt  and  Assyria  are 
here  named,  just  as  Babylonia  and  the  islands  of  the  sea  might  have  been 
named  instead  of  them,  and  just  as  all  these  names  and  others  are  connected 
elsewhere,  to  denote  the  various  lands  where  Jews  were  scattered.  The 
emigration  of  the  people,  especially  after  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquests,  was 
of  course  not  confined  to  their  actual  deportation  by  the  enemy,  nor  was  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  469 


restoration  merely  that  of  such  as  had  been  thus  carried  captive,  but  of  all 
who,  in  consequence  of  that  catastrophe  or  any  other,  had  been  transferred  to 
foreign  parts  by  exile,  flight,  or  voluntary  expatriation.     The  application  of 
this  verse  to  a  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  can  neither  be  established  nor 
disproved.     If  such  a  restoration  can   be  otherwise  shown  to  be  a  subject 
of  prophecy,  this  passage  may  be  naturally  understood  at  least  as  compre- 
hending it.     But  in  itself  considered,  it  appears  to  contain   nothing  which 
may  not  be  naturally  applied  to  events  long  past,  or  which  has  not  found  in 
those  events  an  adequate  fulfilment,     r^n    is  an  impersonal  verb,  it  shall 
be  blown  on  the  trumpet.     According  to  Gese'nius  this  verb  denotes  a  single 
blast,  as  opposed  to  a  continuous  winding  of  the   trumpet.     He  finds  no 
difficulty  in  reconciling  his  hypothesis,  as  to  the  date  of  the  prediction,  with 
the  mention  of  Assyria,  on  the  ground  that  Assyria  still  formed  a  part  of  the 
Babylonian  empire,  that  the  name  was  used  with  latitude  not  only  by  the 
classical  but  the  sacred  writers,  that  the  Prophet  perhaps  designedly  avoided 
to  name  Babylon  expressly,  and  that  this  verse  perhaps  was  partly  taken 
from  an  older  composition  belonging  to  the  times  of  the  Assyrian  ascendency. 
How  much  hypotheses,  as  plausible  as  these,  are  allowed  by  Gesenius  him- 
self to  weigh,  in  behalf  of  the  genuineness  of  the  prophecies,  we  have  already 
bad  occasion  to  observe,  and  shall  yet  have  occasion  to  observe  hereafter. 


CHAPTER   XXVIII. 


Samaria,  the  crown  of  Ephraim,  shall  be  cast  down  by  a  sudden  and 
impetuous  invasion,  as  a  just  judgment  upon  sensual  and  impious  Israel, 
vs.  1-4.  To  the  remnant  of  Israel,  Jehovah  will  himself  be  a  crown  and  a 
protection,  a  source  of  wisdom  and  of  strength,  vs.  5,  6.  Yet  even  these 
imitate  the  example  of  apostate  Israel,  and  in  their  self-indulgence  cast  off 
the  authority  of  God  and  refuse  the  instructions  of  his  prophet,  to  their  own 
undoing,  vs.  7-13.  But  their  impious  contempt  of  God  and  self-reliance 
shall  but  hasten  their  destruction.  All  who  do  not  build  upon  the  sure 
foundation  laid  in  Zion,  must  inevitably  perish  as  the  enemies  of  Israel  were 
destroyed  of  old,  vs.  14-22.  The  delay  of  judgment  no  more  proves  that 
it  will  never  come,  than  the  patience  of  the  husbandman,  and  his  preparatory 
labours,  prove  that  he  expects  no  harvest ;  and  the  difference  of  God's  deal- 
ings with  different  men  is  no  more  inconsistent  with  his  general  purposes  of 
wrath  or  mercy,  than  the  husbandman's  treatment  of  the  different  grains  is 
inconsistent  with  his  general  purpose  of  securing  and  enjoying  them,  vs. 
23-29. 


470  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII. 


This  chapter  is  by  most  of  the  late  writers  joined  with  ch.  29-33,  as 
belonging  to  the  same  date  and  subject.  Ewald  without  sufficient  ground 
regards  it  as  a  later  composition.  The  elaborate  attempts,  made  by  Hitzig 
and  others,  to  determine  the  precise  date  of  the  composition,  as  they  rest  on 
no  sufficient  data,  are  of  course  unsatisfactory  and  inconclusive.  It  was 
obviously  written  before  the  downfall  of  Samaria,  but  how  long  before  is 
neither  ascertainable  nor  of  importance  to  the  exposition  of  the  prophecy. 

V.l.  Woe  to  the  high  crown  of  the  drunkards  ofEphraim,  and  the  fading 
flower,  his  ornament  of  beauty,  which  (is)  on  the  head  of  the  fat  valley  of 
the  wine- smitten.     Here,  as  in  ch.  9:  9,  21.   11  :  13,  we  are  to  understand 
by  Ephraim  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  by  the  drunkards  of  Ejphraim  its 
vicious  population,  and  by  the  lofty  crown  the  city  of  Samaria,  so  called  as 
the  chief  town  and  the  royal  residence,  but  also   with   allusion  to  its  local 
situation  on  an  insulated  hill  overlooking  a  rich  plain  or  valley.     "  It  would 
be  difficult  to  find,  in  all  Palestine,  a  situation  of  equal  strength,  fertility, 
and  beauty  combined."   (Robinson's  Palestine,  III.  1 46.)     Most  interpreters 
assume  a  further  allusion  to  the  practice  of  wearing  wreaths  or  garlands  at 
feasts.     Lowth  and  Gesenius  suppose  this  to  be  the  only  reason  why  the 
men  of  Ephraim  are  here  called  drunkards,  q.  d.  like  the  crown  which 
drunkards  wear  at  feasts,  so  is  Samaria  a  crown  to  Ephraim.      Others, 
with  more  probability,  invert  the  process,  and  suppose  the  figure  of  a  garland 
to  have  been  suggested  by  the  description  of  the  people  as  drunkards. 
Ewald  combines  the  two  hypotheses  by  saying  that  as  Samaria  was  in  its 
situation  like  a  crown,  and  as  the  people  were  habitually  drunk,  the  city  is 
poetically  represented   as  a  reveller's  crown.     The  reference  to  literal  in- 
toxication appears  plain  from  a  comparison  of  Amos  4 :  1,  6 :  1,6.    Drunk- 
enness is  mentioned,  not  as  the  only  prevalent  iniquity,  but  as  a  crying  one, 
and  one  contributing  to  many  others.     The  moral  and  spiritual  consequences 
of  this  vice  must  be  taken  into  view  ;  but  the  exclusive  reference  of  the 
words  to  spiritual  drunkenness,  whether  delusion  or  stupidity  or  both,  seems 
entirely  untenable.     No  such  conclusion   can  be   drawn,  as  we  shall  see 
below,  from  ch.  29  :  9,  on  the  authority  of  which  the  Septuagint  seems  to 
have  translated  "p  ^bn,  in  the  verse   before  us,  fie&vovrsg  avsv  otrov.     The 
same  version  has  confounded  **$&  with  *ysp:  and  rendered   it  fiiu&coToi. 
This  verse  contains  three  examples  of  the  Hebrew  idiom,  which,  instead  of 
an  adjective,  uses  one  substantive  to  qualify  another;  crown  of  elevation  for: 
lofty  crown,  beauty  of  glory  for  glorious  beauty,  and  valley  of  fatnesses  for  fat 
valley.     Yet  no  one  has  alleged  this  accumulation   of  peculiar  idioms  as  a 
proof  of  bad  taste  or  a  later  age.     Cocceius  greatly  adds  to  the  beauty  of 
the  first  clause,  by  explaining  waa  of  physical  elevation  rather  than  of  pride. 
Hitzig  supposes  two   distinct  comparisons,  that  of  the  city  to  a  crown,  and 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVIII.  471 

that  of  the  population  to  a  flower.  It  is  far  more  natural,  however,  to  apply 
both  clauses  to  Samaria,  and  to  suppose  that  the  figure  of  a  crown  is  ex- 
changed for  that  of  a  flower,  or  that  the  idea  throughout  the  verse  is  that  of 
a  wreath  or  garland,  which  is  really  included  under  the  name  crown.  The 
latter  member  of  the  first  clause  is  by  some  construed  thus,  and  the  flower 
whose  glorious  beauty  fades  ;  by  others,  for  example  the  English  Version, 
(Ephraim)  whose  glorious  beauty  is  a  fading  flower.  The  analogy  of  v.  4 
seems  to  show,  however,  that  this  member  of  the  sentence  is  in  apposition 
with  MM)  h^DSjin  the  one  before  it,  which  construction  is  moreover  the  most 
obvious  and  simple.  The  English  .Version  also  mars  the  beauty  of  the  first 
clause,  by  making  b^k  *$$  not  a  genitive  but  a  dative.  The  fading  flower 
implies  that  the  glory  of  Samaria  was  transient,  with  particular  allusion  to  its 
approaching  overthrow  by  Shalmaneser.  Hitzig  and  Ewald  render  *ln  as  a 
mere  exclamation  (O),  and  suppose  the  verse  to  speak  of  Samaria  as  already 
fallen.  Vatablus  strangely  understands  by  E^E^-aoa  the  head  of  the  revel- 
ler, drenched  with  unguents  and  perfumes.  Augusti  likewise  renders  it,  dem 
Sammelplatze  der  Salben.  E"323),  as  being  a  mere  qualifying  term,  retains 
the  absolute  form,  although  the  phrase,  considered  as  a  whole,  is  in  regimen 
with  the  one  that  follows.  Examples  of  a  similar  construction  may  be  found 
in  ch.  10:  12,  and  1  Chron.  9:  13.  Wine-smitten  or  wine-stricken  is  a 
strong  description  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  effects  of  drunkenness. 
Gill's  lively  paraphrase  is:  smitten,  beaten,  knocked  down  with  it  as  with  a 
hammer,  and  laid  prostrate  on  the  ground,  where  they  lie  fixed  to  it,  not 
able  to  get  up.  Analogous  expressions  are  the  Greek  ohonlys  and  the  Latin 
saucius  mero  and  percussus  vino.  Barnes  sets  this  verse  down  as  a  proof, 
that  the  inhabitants  of  wine  countries  are  as  certainly  intemperate  as  those 
which  make  use  of  ardent  spirits. 

V.  2.  Behold,  there  is  to  the  Lord  (i.  e.  the  Lord  has)  a  strong  and 
mighty  one,  like  a  storm  of  hail,  a  destroying  tempest,  like  a  storm  of  mighty 
rushing  waters,  he  has  brought  (it)  to  the  ground  with  the  hand.  As  htti 
very  commonly  denotes  a  proximate  futurity,  Clericus  explains  it  as  equiva- 
lent to  mox ;  but  in  this  case  it  appears  to  be  intended  merely  to  invite 
attention  to  the  following  description,  as  of  a  scene  or  action  present  to  the 
senses.  The  oldest  editions  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  a  large  number  of 
manuscripts,  read  rrm  instead  of  V«.  Lowth  understands  to  the  Lord  as 
expressing  a  superlative,  like  the  analogous  expression  before  the  Lord  m 
Gen.  10:  9,  and  translates  accordingly,  the  mighty  one,  the  exceedingly 
strong  one.  Henderson  supposes  b  to  denote  possession  and  translates  of 
Jehovah.  Luther  has  from,  which  is  retained  by  Gesenius,  who  moreover 
introduces  the  verb  comes.  Hitzig  explains  the  b  as  denoting  the  efficient 
agent,  as  it  is  said  to  do  after  passive  verbs,  corresponding  to  the  English  by. 


472  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII. 


But  this  use  of  the  particle  is  very  doubtful,  and  at  least  unnecessary  in  the 
case  before  us.  The  simplest  construction,  and  the  one  most  agreeable  to 
usage  is  that  given  by  Hendewerk,  Ewald,  and  Knobel,  there  is  to  Jehovah, 
i.  e.  Jehovah  has,  has  ready,  has  in  reserve.  (Vide  supra,  ch.  2 :  12.  22  :  5,) 
The  English  Version  therefore  (the  Lord  hath)  is  in  sense  entirely  correct. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  follows  the  Peshito  in  taking  pm  and  yq*  as  abstracts 
meaning  power  and  strength.  Of  those  versions  which  translate  them 
strictly  as  adjectives,  the  Vulgate  makes  them  epithets  of  God  himself, 
(validus  et  fortis  Dominus)  and  so  overlooks  the  b  altogether;  Jarchi  con- 
strues them  with  wind,  Kimchi  with  day,  and  others  with  army  understood ; 
Cocceius  and  Vitringa  make  them  neuter  or  indefinite,  meaning  something 
strong  and  mighty ;  the  Targum  and  Rosenmiiller  construe  them  with 
strokes  or  visitations  understood  ;  but  most  interpreters,  including  the  most 
recent,  understand  them  as  descriptive  of  a  person  and  apply  them  directly 
to  Shalmaneser  or  to  the  kings  of  Assyria  indefinitely.  For  tempest  of  des- 
truction Cocceius  has  horror  excidii,  in  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the  root 
"isttj  and  some  of  its  derivatives.  DeDieu  reads  nrui  and  translates  it,  in  the 
gate  there  is  destruction  ;  others,  through  the  gate  it  enters.  But  the  com- 
mon version  (a  destroying  storm)  may  now  be  looked  upon  as  settled.  The 
last  clause  is  strangely  paraphrased  by  Jonathan  so  as  to  mean,  that  the 
enemy  shall  take  the  people  from  their  own  land  to  another,  on  account  of 
the  iniquity  found  in  their  hand.  The  meaning  to  the  earth  or  to  the  ground 
is  clear  from  ch.  63  :  6,  and  other  cases.  The  Vulgate  confounds  the  phrase 
with  d*w  Y*$*  (cn*  22  :  18),  and  translates  it  super  terram  spatiosam.  *i*b 
is  commonly  explained  to  mean  with  power,  as  in  the  Septuagint  (§ia). 
Gesenius  gives  this  sense  to  1J  itself;  Rosenmiiller  supposes  an  ellipsis  of 
strong,  Hitzig  of  outstretched,  Hendewerk  an  allusion  to  a  rod  held  in  the 
hand.  Junius  explains  the  phrase  to  mean  with  one  hand,  i.  e.  easily. 
There  seems  however  to  be  no  need  of  departing  from  the  strict  sense  of 
the  words  as  given  in  the  English  Version  (with  the  hand),  and  by  Ewald 
with  a  needless  change  of  hand  to  fist.  It  then  completes  the  picture  by 
describing  the  crown  of  Ephraim  as  torn  from  his  head  and  thrown  upon  the 
ground  by  the  hand  of  a  victorious  enemy.  To  this  explanation  no  objec- 
tion can  be  drawn  from  the  previous  mention  of  the  hail  and  rain  ;  for  these 
are  mere  comparisons,  descriptive  of  the  violence  with  which  the  enemy 
should  make  his  attack.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  a  strong  and  mighty  enemy, 
rushing  upon  you  like  a  hail-storm  or  a  driving  rain,  shall  cast  your  crown 
upon  the  earth  with  his  hand.  That  the  crown  is  the  object  of  the  verb 
msrij  may  De  safely  inferred  from  the  foregoing  and  the  following  verse, 
though  some  interpreters  have  made  it  govern  the  strong  and  mighty  one 
himself,  or  the  rain  and  storm  with  which  he  is  compared,  as  being  sent  upon 
the  earth  by  Jehovah.     Though  tvyn  should   be  rendered  as  a  preterite,  it 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  473 

does  not  follow  of  necessity,  that  the  event  described  had  already  taken  place, 
but  merely  that  in  this  case  it  is  so  presented  to  the  Prophet's  view. 

V.  3.  With  the  feet  shall  be  trodden  the  lofty  crown  of  the  drunkards 
of  Ephraim.  It  is  cast  down  by  the  hand  and  trampled  under  foot.  This 
antithesis  makes  it  almost  certain  that  1J  in  the  preceding  verse  is  to  be  taken 
in  its  proper  sense.  The  plural  form  of  the  verb  has  been  variously  explain- 
ed. The  ancient  versions  all  translate  it  as  a  singular.  The  Rabbins  make 
intiS  a  collective.  Lowth  reads  mios  in  the  plural.  Cocceius  refers  the 
verb  to  the  crown  and  flower  separately.  Junius  puts  drunkards,  not  in 
construction  but  in  apposition  with  crown,  which  is  also  the  case  of  the 
English  Version  (the  crown  of  pride,  the  drunkards  of  Ephraim).  Vit- 
ringa  explains  the  plural  form  upon  the  ground  that  while  the  verse  literally 
relates  to  the  downfall  of  Samaria,  it  mystically  relates  to  the  downfall  of 
Jerusalem.  Clericus  simply  says  that  the  crown  meant  was  that  of  many 
persons  ;  Rosenmuller  that  the  feminine  verb  is  used  as  a  neuter ;  Hende- 
werk  that  it  is  a  pluralis  majestaticus,  or  refers  to  Samaria  as  the  represen- 
tative of  the  other  towns  of  Israel.  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  seem  to 
be  agreed  that  it  is  an  anomalous  or  rather  idiomatic  use  of  the  plural  for  the 
singular,  as  in  Exod.  1 :  10.  Jud.  5  :  26.  Job  17 :  16.  There  is  great 
probability  in  Henderson's  suggestion,  that  the  ris  in  all  such  cases  is  not  a 
feminine  but  a  paragogic  or  intensive  termination,  analogous  to  that  of  the 
antithetic  future  in  Arabic. 

V.  4.  And  the  fading  flower  of  his  glorious  beauty,  which  is  on  the 
head  of  the  fat  valley,  shall  be  like  a  first-ripe  fig,  which  he  that  sees  it 
sees,  and  while  it  is  yet  in  his  hand  swallows  it.  This  comparison  ex- 
presses the  avidity  with  which  the  enemy  would  seize  upon  Samaria,  and 
perhaps  the  completeness  of  its  desolation.  The  fruit  referred  to  is  the  early 
fig  of  Palestine  which  ripens  in  June,  while  the  regular  season  of  ingather- 
ing is  from  August  to  November,  so  that  the  former  is  regarded  as  a  rarity 
and  eaten  with  the  greater  relish.  The  figure  is  not  here  intended  to  ex- 
press either  ease  or  rapidity  of  conquest,  for  the  siege  of  Samaria  lasted  three 
years  (2  Kings  17  :  5)*  To  suppose,  with  J.  D.  Michaelisand  Henderson, 
that  a  siege  of  this  length  was  considered  short  compared  with  those  of 
Tyre  and  Askelon,  seems  very  forced.  The  immediate  eating  of  the  fruit 
is  only  mentioned  as  a  sign  of  eagerness  or  greediness.  Vitringa  under- 
stands the  simile  as  meaning  that  Samaria  when  taken  would  be  instantly 
destroyed,  as  the  first  ripe  fruit  is  eaten  and  not  stored  away.  This  would 
also  remove  the  apparent  discrepancy,  and  is  in  itself  not  improbable, 
although  less  obvious  and  natural  than  the  explanation  first  proposed.  The 
last  clause,  though  singularly  worded,  evidently  means  that  as  soon  as  one 


474  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII. 

sees  it  and  lays  hold  of  it  he  swallows  it  without  delay,  or  as  Gill  expresses 
it  in  homespun   English,  '  as  soon  as  he  has  got  it  into  his  hand,  he  can't 
keep  it  there  to  look   at,  or  forbear   eating  it,  but  greedily  devours  it  and 
swallows   it  down  at  once.'     "i&a  however  does  not  literally  mean  as  soon 
as,  but  while  yet,  which  renders  the  expression  stronger  still,  as  strictly  de- 
noting that  he  eats  it  while  it  is  yet  in  his  hand.     The  Septuagint  expresses 
the  same  meaning  with  a  change  of  form,  by  saying  that  before  one  has  it  in 
his  hand  he  ivishes  to  devour  it.     The  same  version  renders  ttjWJa  iTQodQOfiog 
avxov,  and  Pliny  says,  ficus  et  praecoces  habet  quas  Athenis  prodromos  vo- 
cant.     Joseph  Kimchi  explained  S)3  here  to  mean  a  branch,  and  this  sense 
is  expressed  by  Luther,  who  understands   the  clause  to  mean,  that  the  fig 
spoils  or  perishes   (verdirbt)  while  one  still  sees  it  hanging  on  the  branch. 
As  *iisa  means  literally  in  yet,  so  ta'naa  strictly  means  in  not  yet,  two  ex- 
amples of  a  peculiar  Hebrew  idiom  in  a  single  sentence.     Hitzig,  in  order 
to  refer  this  verse  to  the  conquest  of  Samaria  as  already  past,  denies  that  the 
1  at  the  beginning  is  conversive,  and  refers  to  other  cases  where  it  is  simply 
conjunctive  ;  but  in  this  case  its  conversive   power  is  determined  by  the 
foregoing  future  ttW^R,  whereas  in  the  others  there  is  either  no  preceding 
future,  or  it  is  contained  in  a  quotation  and  not  in  the  regular  order  of  dis- 
course.    It  may  also  be  objected  to  Hitzig's  hypothesis,  that  the  Tin  in  v.  1 
and  the  BVWi  di^a  in  v.  5,  both  imply  that  the  event  described  is   future. 
mx^x  seems  to  be  a  mere  euphonic  variation  of  "px  in  v.  4.     In  solving  its 
construction  with  what  follows,  Gesenius  and  most  of  the  late  writers  take 
fcab  to  be  an  adjective  used  as  a  substantive  and  governed  regularly  by  nx"*x, 
flower  of  fading  for  fading  flower,  of  which  construction  there  are  some 
examples  elsewhere.    (See  ch.  22 :  24.  Prov.  6  :  24.  24  :  25.)     The  next 
clause  may  then  be  relatively  understood  (which  was  his  glorious  beauty), 
or  in  apposition  (the  fading  flower,  his  glorious  beauty)  ;  but  Ewald,  and 
many  of  the  older  writers,  regard  this  phrase  as  in  regimen  with  what  fol- 
lows (the  fading  flower  of,  etc.).     The  English  Version,  as  in  v.  1,  makes 
Ws  EigftK  the  predicate  (shall  be  a  fading  flower  and  as,  etc.).     Hendewerk 
supposes  bab  the  fading  one  to  be  an  epithet  of  Ephraim  himself,     "pg  is 
the  fruit-harvest,  and  especially  the  ingathering  of  figs.     The  modern  critics 
are  agreed   that  the  final  syllable  of  miaa,  although  written  in  most  manu- 
scripts with  mappik,  is  not  a  suffix  but  a  feminine  termination.     This  name 
of  the  early  fig  is  still  retained,  not  only  in  Arabic  but  in  Spanish,  into  which 
it  was  transplanted  by  the  Moors.     Lowth's  decision,  that  nsnn  hsw?  is  a 
miserable  tautology,  is  worth  about  as  much  as  his  decision,  that  Houbigant's 
emendation  (irw  for  fi&n*1)  is  a  happy  conjecture.     The  tautology  at  all 
events  is  no  more  miserable  here  than  in  ch.  16  :  10  or  28  :  24,  not  to 
mention  2  Sam.  17 :  9  or  Ez.  33 :  4,     The  liberties  which  critics  of  this 
school  took  with  the  text,  and  the  language  which  they  used  in  self-justifica- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVIII.  475 

tion,  must  bo  considered  as  having  contributed  in  some  degree  to  the  sub- 
sequent revolution  of  opinion  with  respect  to  points  of  more  intrinsic  moment. 

V.  5.  In  that  day  shall  Jehovah  of  Hosts  be  for  (or  become)  a  crown  of 
beauty  and  a  diadem  of  glory  to  the  remnant  of  his  people.  By  the  rem- 
nant of  the  people  Jarchi  understands  those  of  the  ten  tribes  who  should 
survive  the  destruction  of  Samaria ;  Knobel  the  remnant  of  Judah  itself, 
which  should  escape  Shalmaneser's  invasion  expected  by  the  Prophet ; 
Hendewerk  the  remnant  of  Israel  again  considered  as  one  body  after  the  fall 
of  the  apostate  kingdom  ;  Kimchi  the  kingdom  of  the  two  tribes  as  the  rem- 
nant of  the  whole  race.  This  last  approaches  nearest  to  the  true  sense 
which  appears  to  be  that  after  Samaria,  the  pride  of  the  apostate  tribes,  had 
fallen,  they  who  still  remained  as  members  of  the  church  or  chosen  people 
should  glory  and  delight  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah  as  their  choicest 
privilege  and  highest  honour.  The  expressions  are  borrowed  from  the  first 
verse  but  presented  in  a  new  combination.  As  our  idiom  admits  in  this  case 
of  a  close  imitation  of  the  Hebrew,  the  common  version  which  is  strictly 
literal  is  much  to  be  preferred  to  Lowth's  (a  beauteous  crown  and  a  glorious 
diadem).  Of  the  versions  which  exchange  the  nouns  for  adjectives  the 
most  felicitous  is  Luther's  (eme  liebliche  Krone  und  herrlicher  Kranz). 
Instead  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts  the  Targum  has  the  Messiah  of  Jehovah. 

V.  6.  And  for  a  spirit  of  judgment  to  him  ihatsitteth  in  judgment,  and 
for  strength  to  them  that  turn  the  battle  to  the  gate.     This,  which  is  the 
common  English  Version,  coincides  with  that  of  the  latest  and  best  writers. 
OBiaart  bs  may  either  be  explained  as  meaning  on  the  judgment-seat,  with 
Calvin  (super  tribunal),  or  in  judgment,  i.  e.  for  the  purpose  of  judging, 
with   Clericus   (juris    dicundi  causa)  and    most  other  writers.      In   illus- 
tration of  the  first  sense   may    be   cited    Ps.    9 :    5,  thou   sittest   on   the 
throne  judging  right ;  in  illustration  of  the  other,  1  Sam.  20:  24.  30:  24, 
where  b5  ntt3^  indicates  the  purpose  for  which,  or  the  object  with  respect  to 
which,  one  sits.     The  last  words  of  the  verse  are  applied  to  those  who  return 
home  safe  from  war,  by  Symmachus,  the  Targum,  and  the  Vulgate  (rever- 
tentibus  de  bello  ad  portam)  ;  to  those  who  repel  the  battle  from  the  gate, 
by  the  Peshito,  Clericus,  and  Augusti ;  but  by  all  the  later  writers  to  those 
who  drive  the  war  back  to  the  enemy's  own  gates,  or  as  it  were  carry  it  into 
his  own  country.     J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  to  gate  the  specific  sense  of  boun- 
dary or  frontier,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary,  as  it  is  usual  to  mention  towns, 
if  not  their  gates,  in  such  connexions.  (See  for  example  2  Sam.  11:  23. 
2  Kings  18  :  8.)     The  war  meant  is  therefore  wholly  defensive.     The  two 
great  requisites  of  civil   government  are  here  described   as  coming  from 
Jehovah.     Even  Gesenius  adverts  to  the  fact,  that  the  Spirit  of  this  verse  is 
not  a  mere  influence,  but  God  himself. 


476  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVIII. 


V.  7.  And  (yet)  these  also  (or  even  these)  through  wine  have  erred,  and 
through  strong  drink  have  gone  astray.  Priest  and  Prophet  have  erred 
through  strong  drink,  have  been  swallowed  up  of  wine,  have  been  led  astray 
by  strong  drink,  have  erred  in  vision,  have  wavered  in  judgment.  Having 
predicted  in  the  foregoing  verse,  that  when  Ephraim  fell  Judah  should  con- 
tinue to  enjoy  the  protection  of  Jehovah,  the  Prophet  now  describes  even  this 
favoured  remnant  as  addicted  to  the  same  sins  which  had  hastened  the 
destruction  of  the  ten  tribes,  viz.  sensual  indulgence  and  the  spiritual  evils 
which  it  generates.  The  drunkenness  here  mentioned  is  taken  in  a  moral 
and  spiritual  sense,  even  by  Calvin  and  others  who  understand  v.  1  as  re- 
lating to  literal  intoxication  ;  but  this  mode  of  exposition  seems  entirely 
arbitrary.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  suppose  the  moral  or  spiritual  effects 
of  drunkenness  to  be  included.  Many  interpreters  suppose  the  Prophet  to 
revert  at  this  point  to.  the  state  of  Judah  in  his  own  day.  Of  such  transi- 
tions there  are  numerous  examples ;  but  the  supposition  is  unnecessary 
here,  where  the  obvious  construction  of  the  passage,  as  continuous  in  point  of 
time,  yields  a  good  and  appropriate  sense.  The  meaning  then  is  that  the 
Jews,  although  distinguished  from  the  ten  tribes  by  God's  sparing  mercy, 
should  nevertheless  imitate  them  in  their  sins.  There  is  great  probability 
in  Henderson's  suggestion,  that  the  prophecy* refers  to  the  national  deteriora- 
tion in  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  The  da  at  the  beginning  is  emphatic,  not 
only  Ephraim  but  also  these  or  even  these.  Ewald  arbitrarily  translates 
T\\&  here,  and  makes  the  verbs  indefinite  (taumelt  man).  The  Priest  and 
Prophet  are  named  as  the  leaders  of  the  people,  and  as  those  who  were 
peculiarly  bound  to  set  a  better  example.  The  reference  to  judgment  in  the 
last  clause  may  be  explained,  either  on  the  ground  that  the  Priest  and 
Prophet  represent  the  rulers  of  the  people  in  general,  or  because  the  Priests 
themselves  exercised  judicial  functions  in  certain  prescribed  cases  (Deut. 
17  :  9.  19:  17).  Junius  and  others  needlessly  take  "i^bin  the  general  sense 
of  ruler.  Another  not  improbable  solution  is  that  tVWto  does  not  mean 
judgment  in  the  technical  sense,  but  more  generally  the  declaration  of  the 
will  of  God.  There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  ground  for  Gesenius's  ex- 
planation of  the  word  as  meaning  judgment-seat.  Maurer  gives  the  same 
sense,  and  explains  the  whole  phrase,  they  stagger  (or  reel)  into  the  judgment- 
seat.  Most  of  the  late  interpreters,  instead  of  the  more  general  sense  of 
erring,  wandering,  explain  niiti  and  nsfi  as  specifically  meaning  to  reel  or 
stagger,  which  adds  to  the  vividness  of  the  description,  but  does  not  seem  to 
be  entirely  justified  by  usage.  Hendewerk  takes  *DQS  as  an  abstract  mean- 
ing intoxication.  J.  D.  Michaelis  translates  it  beer.  Hitzig  explains  ^i 
as  meaning  in  the  act  of  drinking  wine  ;  but  most  other  writers  with  more 
probability  regard  both  yo  and  a  as  here  denoting  the  means  or  cause  of  the 
intoxication.     Henderson's  version  of  isbsa  (overpowered)  leaves  out  of  view 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  477 

the  obvious  allusion  to  literal  deglutition  ;  for,  as  Gill  suggests,  they  swallow- 
ed the  wine  down,  and  it  swallowed  them  up.  Here  again  Barnes  sees  his 
favourite  image  of  a  maelstrom,  Maurer  suggests  as  a  possible  construction 
that  the  last  words  may  cohere  with  the  first  of  the  next  verse  and  ipe  have 
the  meaning  of  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac  pfia:  they  go  out  of  the  judgment- 
seat  because  all  the  tables,  etc.  But  "(nbn>  is  a  dining-table,  not  a  writing- 
desk.  Nor  is  there  any  such  improvement  in  the  sense  as  would  seem  to 
justify  such  a  departure  from  the  traditional  arrangement  of  the  text.  The 
use  of  strong  drinks  was  expressly  forbidden  to  the  priests  in  the  discharge 
of  their  official  functions  (Lev.  10:  9.  Ezek.  44  :  21).  KfcH  is  commonly 
explained  as  a  participle  used  for  an  abstract  noun,  seeing  or  seer  (or  sight,  an 
explanation  which  is  certainly  favoured  by  the  analogous  use  of  rn'n  in  v.  18. 
It  is  possible  however  that  rn£\^  may  mean  in  the  office,  character,  or  func- 
tions of  a  seer,  as  Junius  explains  it  (in  functione  videntis). 

V.  8.  For  all  tables  are  full  of  vomit,  of  filth,  without  a  place  (i.  e.  a 
clean  place).  Grotius  understands  by  tables  the  tribunals,  and  by  filth  and 
vomit  the  injustice  practised  there,  which  he  says  was  likewise  called  sordes 
by  the  Latins.  How  arbitrary  such  expositions  must  be,  will  appear  from 
the  fact,  that  Vitringa  makes  the  tables  mean  the  schools  or  places  of  public 
instruction,  and  the  vomit  the  false  doctrine  there  taught  and  again  reproduced 
to  the  injury  of  others.  The  only  natural  interpretation  is  that  which  sup- 
poses tables  to  denote  the  places  where  men  eat  and  drink,  and  the  other  terms 
the  natural  though  revolting  consequences  of  excess.  Cocceius,  who  takes 
tables  in  its  proper  sense,  explains  the  filth  to  mean  corrupt  or  unprofitable 
conversation  ;  but  this  is  a  most  unreasonable  mixture  of  literal  and  figurative 
exposition.  Whether  the  intoxication  thus  described  is  wholly  spiritual, 
depends  of  course  upon  the  meaning  given  to  the  preceding  verse.  Most 
writers  suppose  fix's  to  be  governed  by  BOp,  and  resolve  the  phrase  into  an 
adjective  construction  by  translating  it  filthy  vomit.  Augusti  makes  the 
first  word  the  qualifying  term,  and  renders  it  vomited  filth.  As  the  words 
however  are  distinct  in  origin,  the  best  construction  is  that  which  makes  them 
both  dependent  on  the  verb :  full  of  vomit,  full  of  filth.  There  is  no  more 
need  of  supplying  a  preposition  before  fixs  than  before  «ip.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  copulative  and  is  needless  and  impairs  the  force  of  the  expression. 
4a  is  properly  a  noun  meaning  failure  or  defect,  but  is  constantly  used  as  a 
negative  adverb  or  preposition.  The  sense  of  this  clause  is  correctly  though 
diffusely  given  in  the  English  Version  (so  that  there  is  no  place  clean). 
Luther  gives  the  sense,  but  with  a  change  of  form,  by  rendering  it  in 
all  places.  So  too  one  of  the  French  Versions  (tellement  que  tout  en  est 
plein).  It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  the  Septuagint  translation  of  this 
verse  does  not  exhibit  any  trace  of  the  original. 


478  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVIII. 

V.  9.  Whom  ivill  he  teach  knowledge  ?  And  whom  will  he  make  to 
understand  doctrine  1  Those  weaned  from  the  milk  and  removed  from  the 
breasts.  The  Targum  makes  this  a  description  of  Israel  as  the  favoured 
people  to  whom  the  law  was  exclusively  given.  In  like  manner  some  of 
the  older  Christian  writers  understand  it  as  descriptive  of  the  persons  whom 
Jehovah,  or  the  Prophet  acting  in  his  name,  would  choose  as  proper  subjects 
of  instruction,  viz.  simple  and  childlike  disciples,  who  as  new-born  babes 
desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word  (I  Pet.  2:  2).  But  the  children  here 
described  are  weanlings  not  sucklings,  and  on  this  hypothesis  the  weaning, 
which  is  so  particularly  mentioned,  would  have  no  significancy.  Besides, 
this  explanation  of  the  words  would  not  suit  the  context,  either  before  or 
after.  It  is  therefore  commonly  agreed,  that  the  last  clause  must  be  taken 
in  a  contemptuous  or  unfavourable  sense,  as  denoting  children  not  in  malice 
merely  but  in  understanding  (1  Cor.  14:  20).  On  this  assumption  some 
have  explained  the  verse  as  meaning,  that  the  priest  and  the  prophet,  men- 
tioned in  v.  7,  were  utterly  unfit  to  teach  the  people,  being  themselves  mere 
children  in  knowledge  and  in  understanding.  This  explanation  supposes 
the  singular  verbs  of  the  first  clause  and  the  plural  adjectives  of  the  second 
to  refer  to  the  same  persons.  Another  interpretation  makes  the  words  de- 
scriptive not  of  the  teachers  but  the  taught,  as  being  no  more  fit  to  receive 
instruction  than  a  child  just  weaned.  J.  D.  Michaelis  applies  the  last  clause 
not  to  their  incapacity  but  to  their  unwillingness  to  be  instructed,  as  being 
long  since  weaned  and  now  too  old  to  return  to  the  breast.  This  ingenious 
explanation  has  the  advantage  of  taking  pW  in  its  usual  sense  of  old, 
whereas  all  others  give  it  one  derived  from  pris  to  remove.  But  the  com- 
parative meaning,  which  it  puts  upon  the  preposition  following,  is  excluded 
by  its  obvious  use  in  the  foregoing  phrase  in  its  proper  local  sense  of  from. 
A  new  turn  was  given  to  the  exposition  of  the  verse  by  Lo'wth,  who,  adopt- 
ing an  obscure  suggestion  of  Jerome,  explains  it  as  the  language  not  of  the 
Prophet  but  of  the  wicked  men  before  described,  expressing  their  indignation 
and  contempt  at  the  Prophet's  undertaking  to  instruct  them  as  if  they  were 
mere  children.  Whom  does  he  undertake  to  teach  ?  and  whom  would  he 
make  to  understand  his  doctrine  ?  Children  weaned  from  the  milk  and  re- 
moved from  the  breast  ?  This  interpretation  has  in  substance  been  adopted 
by  all  later  writers,  as  affording  a  good  sense  and  one  admirably  suited  both 
to  the  foregoing  and  the  following  context.  It  seems  to  be  liable  to  only 
two  objections ;  first,  that  it  gratuitously  gives  the  passage  a  dramatic  form 
by  supposing  a  new  speaker  to  be  introduced  without  any  intimation  in  the 
text ;  and  then,  that  it  arbitrarily  continues  the  interrogation  through  the 
sentence.  The  last  objection  may  be  obviated  by  adopting  Henderson's 
modified  construction,  which  supposes  them  to  ask  not  whom  he  would  but 
whom  he  ought  to  teach,  and  then  to  answer,  little  children  just  weaned 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  479 

from  the  breast,  not  men  of  mature  age  and  equal  to  himself.  The  other 
objection,  being  wholly  negative,  must  yield  of  course  to  the  positive  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  an  exposition  which  is  otherwise  coherent,  satisfactory, 
and  suited  to  the  context.  Rosenmuller  seems  indeed  to  think  that  the 
space  between  this  verse  and  that  before  it  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  de- 
notes a  change  of  subject ;  but  these  mechanical  arrangements  of  the  text 
can  have  no  authoritative  influence  upon  its  exposition.  The  verbs  in  the 
first  clause  may  either  be  indefinitely  construed  or  referred  to  the  Prophet, 
without  a  material  change  of  meaning.  WlSV  properly  denotes  something 
heard,  and  here  means  that  which  the  Prophet  heard  from  God  and  the 
people  from  the  Prophet,  in  other  words  divine  revelation,  whether  general 
or  special.  There  are  few  examples  of  a  more  exact  translation  than  the 
Vulgate  version  of  this  verse,  in  which  the  very  form  of  the  original  is  hap- 
pily retained,  not  excepting  the  etymological  import  of  the  word  Itpstt.  So 
rigid  is  the  version  that  Montanus  has  retained  it  in  his  own  unchanged. 
Quern  docebit  scientiaml  et  quern  intelligere  faciei  audituml  ablactatos  a 
lacte,  avuhos  ab  uberibus. 

V.  10.  For  (it  is)  rule  upon  rule,  rule  upon  rule,  line  upon  line,  line  upon 
line,  a  little  here,  a  little  there.  The  interpretation  of  this  verse  varies  of 
course  with  that  of  the  one  before  it.  Those  who  understand  v.  9  as  descrip- 
tive of  God's  favour  to  the  Jews,  explain  this  in  like  manner  as  relating  to  the 
abundance  of  the  revelations  made  to  them,  including  rules  and  counsels 
suited  to  every  emergency  of  life.  Henderson's  remark,  that  the  words  are 
often  preposterously  quoted  in  application  to  the  abundant  possession  of  re- 
ligious privileges,  rests  of  course  on  the  assumption  that  his  own  interpreta- 
tion of  v.  9  is  certainly  the  true  one.  But  this  is  far  from  being  so  clear  as 
to  justify  the  branding  of  an  opposite  opinion  with  absurdity.  Those  who 
apply  v.  9  to  the  incapacity  of  the  people  for  high  attainments  in  spiritual 
knowledge,  regard  v.  1 0  as  a  description  of  the  elementary  methods  which 
were  necessary  for  them.  Those  who  apply  v.  9  to  the  incapacity  of  the 
religious  teachers  of  the  Jews  explain  v.  10  as  a  description  of  their  puerile 
method  of  instruction.  The  words  are  thus  understood  by  Vitringa  and  ap- 
plied to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the  time  of  Christ.  But  as  all  the 
latest  writers  make  v.  9  the  language  of  the  Jews  themselves,  complaining 
of  the  Prophet's  perpetual  reproofs  and  teachings,  they  are  equally  agreed  in 
making  v.  10  a  direct  continuation  of  the  same  complaint.  Aben  Ezra  ex- 
plains isb  is  as  meaning  rule  after  rule  or  rule  (joined)  to  rule.  Equally 
good  is  the  construction  in  the  English  Version  (precept  upon  precept) ,  ex- 
cept that  the  word  precept  is  too  long  to  represent  the  chosen  monosyllables 
of  the  original.  The  same  objection  may  be  made  to  Gesenius's  imitation  of 
the  paronomasia  (Gebot  auf  Gebot,  Verbot  auf  Verbot),  which  is  much  in- 


480  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVIII. 


ferior  to  that  of  Ewald  (Satz  zn  Satz,  Schnur  zu  Schnur).  Paulus,  Gese- 
nius,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  and  Ewald,  understand  this  peculiar  clause  as  the 
people's  scoffing  imitation  of  the  Prophet's  manner ;  Koppe,  Eichhorn, 
Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  as  the  Prophet's  own  derisive  imitation  of  their 
drunken  talk.  Koppe  even  goes  so  far  as  to  imagine  that  IS  and  1p  are  here 
intentionally  given  as  half-formed  words,  if  not  as  inarticulate  unmeaning 
sounds.  But  ip  is  in  common  use,  and  is  occurs  in  the  sense  of  rule  or 
precept  in  Hos.  5  :  II.  The  Peshito  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  treat  these  words 
as  cognate  forms  and  synonymes  of  nap's  and  *•$>  in  v.  8,  and  translate 
accordingly,  vomit  upon  vomit,  filth  upon  filth.  Michaelis  moreover  gives 
wt  the  sense  of  spot  or  stain.  Both  ttf  and  T1^  are  referred  by  some  to 
time,  and  by  others  to  quantity  or  space  ;  but  the  simplest  and  best  ex- 
planation seems  to  be  the  one  given  in  the  English  Version  (here  a  little, 
there  a  little)  as  expressive  of  minuteness  and  perpetual  repetition.  Gesen- 
ius  understands  this  verse  as  having  reference  to  the  constant  additions  to 
the  law  of  Moses  in  Isaiah's  time,  the  design  of  which  interpretation  is  to 
fortify  the  doctrine  that  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  now  have  it,  is  long  posterior 
to  the  days  of  Moses.  Rosenmuller,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  all  admit  that  the 
allusion  is  not  to  the  written  law,  but  to  the  oral  admonitions  of  the  Prophets. 
The  Targum  contains  a  diffuse  paraphrase  of  this  verse,  in  which  the  prin- 
cipal words  are  retained,  but  so  combined  with  others  as  to  make  the  whole 
relate  to  the  captivity  of  Israel,  as  the  consequence  of  his  despising  the  ap- 
pointed place  of  worship  and  practising  idolatry. 

V.  1 1 .  For  with  stammering  lips  and  with  another  tongue  will  he  speak 
unto  this  people.  As  nau)  *x$b  may  denote  either  foreign  or  scoffing  speech 
(the  former  being  usually  described  in  the  Old  Testament  as  stammering), 
some  suppose  a  double  allusion  here,  to  wit,  that  as  they  had  mocked  at  the 
divine  instructions  by  their  stammering  speech,  so  he  would  speak  to  them 
in  turn  by  the  stammering  lips  of  foreigners  in  another  language  than  their 
own.  This,  though  by  no  means  an  obvious  construction  in  itself,  is  pre- 
ferred by  the  latest  writers  and  countenanced  by  several  analogous  expres- 
sions in  the  subsequent  context.  Ewald  understands  by  the  stammering 
speech  of  this  verse  the  inarticulate  language  of  the  thunder,  which  is  very 
unnatural.  Of  the  older  writers  some  explain  this  verse  as  descriptive  of 
God's  tenderness  and  condescension  in  accommodating  his  instructions  to  the 
people's  capacity  as  nurses  deal  with  children.  Others  understand  it  to 
mean  that  through  their  own  perverseness  those  instructions  had  been  ren- 
dered unintelligible  and  of  course  unprofitable,  so  that  their  divine  teacher 
had  become  as  it  were  a  barbarian  to  them. 

V.  12.    Who  said  to  them,  this  is  rest,  give  rest  to  the  weary,  and  this  is 
quiet,  but  they  would  not  hear.     The  judgments  threatened  in  the  foregoing 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  481 


verse  were  the  more  evidently  just  because  he  who   threatened  them  had 
warned    the  people   and  pointed  out  to  them  the  only  way  to  happiness. 
i«3$  should  not  be  taken  in  the  rare  and  doubtful  sense  because,  but  in  its 
proper  sense   as  a  relative  pronoun.     This  construction,  far  from  being  in- 
tolerably harsh  (Henderson),  is  the  only  natural  and  simple  one,  as  well  as 
the  only  one  entirely  justified  by  usage.     The  pronoun  may  either  be  con- 
nected with   vtrbit  in  the  sense  of  to  whom  (for  which  there  is  no  other 
Hebrew  expression),  or  referred  to  Jehovah  as  the  subject  of  the  following 
verb.     Who  was  it  that  should  speak  to  them  with  another  tongue  ?     He 
who  had  so  often  said  to  them,  etc.     Although  admissible,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  take  nn^ia  in  the  local  sense  of  resting  place  (Ewald).     The  sense  h 
not,  that  the  true   way   to  rest  is  to  give  rest  to  the  weary  ;  the  latter  ex- 
pression is  a  kind  of  parenthesis,  as  if  he  had  said,  this  is  the  true  rest,  let 
the  weary  enjoy  it.     By  this  we  are  therefore  to  understand,  not  compassion 
and  kindness  to  the  suffering,  but  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  in  general. 
This  is  the  true  rest  which  I  alone  can  give,  and  the  way  to  which  I  have 
clearly  marked  out.     Rest  is  not  quiet  submission  to  the  yoke  of  the  Assy- 
rians (Hitzig),  but  peace,  tranquillity.     To  give  rest  to  the  weary  does  not 
mean  to  cease  from   warlike  preparations,  or  to  relieve  the  people  from  ex- 
cessive burdens,  whether  of  a  civil  or  religious  kind,  but  simply  to  reduce 
to  practice  the  lesson   which  God  had  taught  them.     This  is  the  way  to 
peace,  let  those  who  wish  it  walk  therein.     In  the  last  clause,  would  is  not  a 
mere  auxiliary,  but  an  independent  and  emphatic  verb,  they  were  not  willing. 
The  form  was  (from  the  root  ^ax),  though  resembling  the  Arabic  analogy, 
is  not  a  proof  of  recent  date,  but  rather  of  the  fact,  that  some  forms,  which 
are  prevalent  in  the  cognate  dialects,  were  known  if  not  common  in  the  early 
periods  of  Hebrew  composition. 

V.  13.  And  the  word  of  Jehovah  was  to  them  rule  upon  rule,  line  upon 
line,  a  little  here,  a  little  there,  that  they  might  go,  and  fall  backivards,  and 
he  broken,  and  be  snared,  and  be  taken.  The  law  was  given  that  sin  might 
abound.  The  only  effect  of  the  minute  instructions,  which  they  found  so 
irksome,  was  to  aggravate  their  guilt  and  condemnation.  The  terms  of  the 
first  clause  are  repeated  from  v.  1 0,  and  have  of  course  the  same  meaning  in 
both  places.  The  vav  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  not  conversive,  as  the 
verbs  of  the  preceding  verse  relate  to  past  time.  There  is  neither  necessity 
nor  reason  for  translating  the  particle  but,  so  that,  or  any  thing  but  and,  as  it 
introduces  a  direct  continuation  of  the  foregoing  description,  toV«  does  not 
simply  qualify  the  following  verbs  (go  on  or  continue  to  fall  backwards),  but 
expresses  a  distinct  act.  *fca3g  includes  the  two  ideas  of  stumbling  and  fall- 
ing. Some  give  to  ^^  the  more  specific  sense,  and  break  their  limbs. 
yvqb  according  to  its  etymology  denotes  design  (in  order  that),  but  may  here 

31 


482  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII. 

be  used  simply  to  express  an  actual  result  (so  that),  unless  we  refer  it,  in  its 
strict  sense,  to  the  righteous  purpose  or  design  of  God's  judicial  providence. 

V.  14.  Therefore  (because  your  advantages  have  only  made  you  more 
rebellious)  hear  the  word  of  Jehovah,  ye  scornful  men  (literally  men  of 
scorn,  i.  e.  despisers  of  the  truth),  the  rulers  of  this  people  which  is  in  Jeru- 
salem (or  ye  rulers  of  this  people  who  are  in  Jerusalem).  The  -laia  may 
refer  grammatically  either  to  c?n  or  to  'Jtfo.  This  people,  here  as  else- 
where, may  be  an  expression  of  displeasure  and  contempt.  Jerusalem  is 
mentioned  as  the  seat  of  government  and  source  of  influence.  The  whole 
verse  invites  attention  to  the  solemn  warning  which  follows. 


V.  15.  Because  ye  have  said  (in  thought  or  deed  if  not  in  word),  we 
have  made  a  covenant  with  death,  and  with  hell  (the  grave,  or  the  unseen 
world)   have  formed  a  league  ;  the  overflowing  scourge,  when  it  passes 
through,  shall  not  come  upon  us,  for  we  have  made  falsehood  our  refuge,  and 
in  fraud  we  have  hid  ourselves.     The  meaning  evidently  is,  that  if  their 
actions  were  translated  into  words,  this  would  be  their  import.     There  is  no 
need  therefore  of  throwing  the  words  sts  and  ^ptb  into  a  parenthesis  (J.  D. 
Michaelis)  as  the  Prophet's  comment  on  the  scoffer's  boast,     bwo  is  here 
nothing  more  than  a  poetical  equivalent  to  rtw.     The  textual  reading  tt*qb 
is  probably  an  old  cognate  form  and  synonyme  of  &ve  which  is  given  in  the 
margin.     The  mixed   metaphor  of  an  overflowing  scourge  combines  two 
natural  and  common  figures  for  severe  calamity.     Some  interpreters  apolo- 
gize for  the  rhetorical  defect  of  the  expression,  on  the  ground  that  Hebrew 
ears  were  not  as  delicate  as  ours.     Barnes  throws  the  blame  upon  the 
English  Version,  and  explains  the  Hebrew  word  to  mean  calamity,  but  in  v. 
18  gives  the  meaning  scourge,  and  says  that  three  metaphors  are  there  com- 
bined, which  makes   it  less  incredible  that  two  are  blended  here,     Ktn  is 
properly  a  participle   (seeing)  often  used  as  a  noun  to  denote  a  seer  or 
prophet.     Here    the    connexion  seems  distinctly  to  "require  the   sense  of 
league  or  covenant.     That  there  is  no  error  in  the  text,  may   be  inferred 
from  the  substitution  of  the  cognate  form  rvnn  in  v.  18.     Hitzig  accounts  for 
the   transfer  of  meanings  by  the  supposition  that  in  making  treaties  it  was 
usual  to  consult  the  seer  or  prophet.     Ewald  supposes   an   allusion  to  the 
practice  of  necromantic   art  or  divination  as  a  safeguard  against  death,  and 
translates  the  word  orakel.     The  more  common  explanation   of  the  usage 
traces  it  to  the  idea  of  an  interview  or  meeting  and  the  act  of  looking  one 
another  in  the  face,  from  which  the  transition  is  by  no  means  difficult  to  that 
of  mutual  understanding  or  agreement.     (Calvin  :  visionis  nomine  significat 
id  quod  vulgo  dicimus  avoir  intelligence.)     The  marginal  reading  -\-v  was 
probably  intended   to   assimilate  the  phrase  to  that  employed  in  v.  18,  but 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  483 

without  necessity,  since  either  tense  might  1"'  used  in  this  connexion  to  ex- 
press contingency.  As  the  ether  variations  (i^d  and  oia,  nm  and  rim) 
show  that  the  two  v<  aot  meant  to  I>l'  identical  in  form,  the  read- 

ing in  the  text  (■>--)  is  probahly  the  true  one.  H'z,  when  construed  directly 
with  the  noun,  means  to  come  upon,  in  the  sense  of  attacking  or  invading. 
The  falsehood  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  is  not  a  false  profession  of  idol- 
atry in  order  to  conciliate  the  enemy  (Grotius),  nor  idols,  nor  false  prophets, 
but  falsehood  or  unfaithfulness  to  God,  i.  e.  wickedness  in  general,  perhaps 
with  an  allusion  to  the  falsity  or  treacherous  nature  of  the  hopes  built  upon 
it.  The  translation  under  falsehood,  which  is  given  in  the  English  Bible 
and  in  some  other  versions,  is  neither  justified  by  usage  nor  required  by  the 
connexion.  On  the  other  hand  the  reflexive  version,  we  have  hid  ourselves, 
is  much  more  expressive  than  the  simple  passive. 

V.  16.   Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  Behold  1  lay  in  Ziona 
stone,  a  stone  of  proof,  a  corner  stone  of  value  of  a  firm  foundation ;  the 
believer  will  not  be  in  haste.     To  the  words  of  the  scoffers  are  now  opposed 
the  words  of  God  himself.     Because  you  say  thus  and  thus,  therefore  the 
Lord  says  in  reply  what  follows.     You  trust  for  safety  in  your  own  delusions ; 
on  the  contrary  I  lay  a  sure  foundation,  and  no  other  can  be  laid.     This 
foundation  is  neither  the  temple  (Ewald),  nor  the  law  (Umbreit),  nor  Zion 
itself  (Hitzig),  nor  Hezekiah  (Gesenius),  but  the  Messiah,  to  whom  it  is  re- 
peatedly and  explicitly  applied  in   the  New  Testament  (Rom.    9 :   33. 
10:  11.   1  Peter  2:  6).     The  same  application  of  the  text  is  made  by  Jar- 
chi,  and  according  to  Raymund  Martini  (in  his  Pugio  Fidei)  by  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan,  although  the  word  Messiah  is  now   wanting  in   the  Chaldee 
text.     The  objection,  that  the  stone  here  mentioned  was  already  laid,  has  no 
weight,  as  the  whole  theocracy  existed  with  a  view  to  the  coming  of  Messiah. 
The  reference  of  the  words  to  Hezekiah  is  an  old  one,  as  Theodoret  pro- 
nounces it  an  instance  of  extreme  folly  (avolag  h^drr^).     Hitzig  and  Knobel, 
in  order  to  make  Zion   itself  the  sure  foundation,  make  the  particle  a  beth 
esscntiac,  as  if  he  had  said,  you  have  in  Zion  (i.  e.  Zion  is  to  you)  a  sure 
foundation.     All  other  writers  seem  to  give  the  a  its  proper  local  sense. 
The  phrase  literally  rendered  stone  of  proof  admits  of  two  interpretations. 
Calvin  understands  by  it  a  stone  which  was  to  be  the   test  or  standard  of 
comparison  for  others ;  but  the  common  explanation  is  more  natural,  which 
makes   it  mean  a  stone  that  has  itself  been   proved  or  tried  and  found 
sufficient.     A  kindred  idea  is  expressed  by  the  phrase  1**8  ncia,  a  connate 
noun  and  participle,  literally  meaning  a  founded  foundation,  i.  e.  one  en- 
tirely firm  and  safe.     The   peculiar  form  of  the  original,  arising  from  the 
repetition  of  the  construct  state,  has  been  retained  in  the  translation  above 
given.     There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  with  Kimchi  and  others,  that  mpi  is 


484  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII. 


an  absolute  form  in  apposition  with  what  follows.  The  writer's  purpose 
seems  to  have  been  to  unite  the  members  of  the  sentence  in  construction  by 
a  very  intimate  and  close  articulation.  y&Nto  may  either  be  referred  spe- 
cifically to  the  corner-stone,  or  taken  in  the  general  sense  of  trusting  or 
believing,  sc.  God.  The  objection  to  the  former,  that  the  prophets  never 
exhort  men  to  trust  in  men  or  mere  localities,  is  valid  as  an  argument  against 
the  reference  to  Hezekiah,  or  the  temple,  or  Mount  Zion,  but  not  against  the 
reference  to  the  Messiah,  who  is  constantly  presented  as  an  object  of  faith 
and  a  ground  of  trust.  Will  not  be  in  haste,  i.  e.  will  not  be  impatient,  but 
will  trust  the  promise,  even  though  its  execution  be  delayed.  This  suits  the 
connexion  better  than  the  sense  preferred  by  the  modern  German  writers, 
ivill  not  flee,  or  have  occasion  to  flee,  in  alarm  or  despair.  The  Septua- 
gint  version  adopted  in  the  New  Testament  (shall  not  be  ashamed),  agrees 
essentially  with  that  first  given,  though  it  makes  more  prominent  the  fact  that 
the  believer's  hopes  shall  not  be  disappointed.  If  it  be  true,  as  Gesenius  thinks 
probable,  that  the  Hebrew  verb,  like  a  kindred  one  in  Arabic,  not  only  meant 
to  hasten  but  to  be  ashamed,  the  Septuagint  Version  is  fully  justified,  and 
the  authority  of  the  New  Testament  should  be  regarded  as  decisive  in  fa- 
vour of  that  meaning  here.  But  as  it  cannot  be  traced  in  Hebrew  usage,  it 
is  better  to  regard  the  Greek  as  paraphrasing  rather  than  translating  the 
original  expression.  At  all  events,  there  is  no  need  of  reading  WQ*  with 
Grotius,  Houbigant,  and  Lowth.  The  force  of  the  figures  in  this  verse  is 
much  enhanced  by  the  statements  of  modern  travellers  in  relation  to  the  im- 
mense stones  still  remaining  at  the  foundation  of  ancient  walls.  (See  par- 
ticularly Robinson's  Palestine,  I.  343,  351,  422.) 

V.  17.  And  I  will  place  judg  merit  for  a  line  and  justice  for  a  plummet, 
and  hail  shall  sweep  away  the  refuge  of  falsehood,  and  the  hiding-place 
waters  shall  overflow.     The  meaning  of  the  first  clause  is,  that  God  would 
deal  with  them  in  strict  justice  ;  he  would  make  justice  the  rule  of  his  pro- 
ceedings, as  the  builder  regulates  his  work  by  the  line  and  plummet.     The 
English  Version  seems  to  make  judgment  or  justice  not  the  measure  but  the 
thing  to  be  measured.    The  verb  Wto  with  the  preposition  h  means  to  place  a 
thing  in  a  certain  situation,  or  to  apply  it  to  a  certain  use.   (See  ch.  14 :  23.) 
Hail  and  rain  are  here  used,  as  in  v.  2  above,  to  denote  the  divine  visitations. 
The  refuge  and  the  hiding-place  are  those  of  which  the  scornful  men  had 
boasted  in  v.  15.     To  their  confident  assurance  of  safety  God  opposes,  first, 
the  only  sure  foundation  which  himself  had  laid,  and  then  the  utter  destruc- 
tion which  was  coming  on  their  own  chosen  objects  of  reliance.     Hitzig 
thinks  that  ip»  must  have  dropped  out  after  ino,  as  if  there  were  no  exam- 
ples of  even  greater  variation  in  the  repetitions  of  the  prophets.     The  truth 
is  that  slavish  iteration  of  precisely  the  same  words  is  rather  the  exception 
than  the  rule. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  485 

V.  18.    And  your  covenant  with  death  shall  be  annulled,  and  your 
league  with  hell  shall  not  stand,  and  the  overflowing  scourge — for  it  shall 
pass  through,  and  ye  shall  be  for  it  to  trample  on.     ^cs  seems  to  be  here 
used  in  its  primary  sense  of  covering,  or  perhaps  more  specifically  smearing 
over,  so  as  to  conceal  if  not  to  obliterate,  applied  in  this  case  to  a  writing, 
the  image  in  the  mind  of  the  Prophet  being  probably  that  of  a  waxen  tablet, 
in  which  the  writing  is  erased  by  spreading  out  and  smoothing  the  wax  with 
the  stylus.     In   the  last  clause,  the  construction  seems  to  be  interrupted. 
This  supposition  at  least  enables  us  to  take  both  the  ^d  and  the  1  in  their 
natural  and  proper  sense.     Supposing  the  construction  of  the  clause  to  be 
complete,  it  may  be  explained  as  in  the  English  Version,  which  makes  both 
the  words  in  question  particles  of  time  meaning  when  and  then,     D^na  is 
properly  a  place  or  object  to  be  trodden  down  or  trampled  on.     (See  ch. 
5:  5.)     The  construction  above  given  is  the  one  proposed  by  Henderson, 
except  that  he  has  him  instead  of  it,  in  order  to  avoid  the  application  of  the 
words  to  the  scourge.     There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  idea  of  a  human 
invader  was  before  the  Prophet's  mind ;  but  the  mere  rhetorical  incongruity 
is  not  at  all  at  variance  with  the  Prophet's  manner,  and  is  the  less  to  be 
dissembled  or  denied,  because  the  scourge  will  still  be  described  as  overflow- 
ing.    The  attempt  to  reconcile  the  language  with  the  artificial  rules  of  com- 
position is  in  this  case  rendered  hopeless  by  the  combination  of  expressions 
which  cannot  be  strictly  applied  to  the  same  subject.    An  army  might  tram- 
ple, but  it  could  not  literally  overflow  ;  a  stream  might  overflow,  but  it 
could  not  literally  trample  down.     The  time  perhaps  is  coming  when,  even 
as  a  matter  of  taste,  the  strength  and  vividness  of  such  mixed  metaphors  will 
be  considered  as  outweighing  their  inaccuracy  in  relation   to  an  arbitrary 
standard  of  correctness  or  propriety. 

V.  19.  As  soon  (or  as  often)  as  it  passes  through,  it  shall  take  you  (or 
carry  you  away) ;  for  in  the  morning,  in  the  morning  (i.  e.  every  morning), 
it  shall  pass  through,  in  the  day  and  in  the  night,  and  only  vexation  (or  dis- 
tress) shall  be  the  understanding  of  the  thing  heard.  The  primary  mean- 
ing of  the  noun  *1  is  sufficiency  ;  but  the  phrase  ^va  is  used  in  reference  to 
time,  both  in  the  sense  of  as  soon  and  as  often  as.  The  meaning  may  be 
that  the  threatened  visitation  shall  come  soon  and  be  frequently  repeated. 
There  are  three  interpretations  of  the  last  clause,  one  of  which  supposes  it 
to  mean,  that  the  mere  report  of  the  approaching  scourge  should  fill  them 
with  distress  ;  another,  that  the  effect  of  the  report  should  be  unmixed  dis- 
tress ;  a  third,  that  nothing  but  a  painful  experience  would  enable  them  to 
understand  the  lesson  which  the  Prophet  was  commissioned  to  teach  them. 
nr-ar,  meaning  simply  what  is  heard,  may  of  course  denote  either  rumour 
or  revelation.     The  latter  seems  to  be  the  meaning  in  v.  9,  where  the  noun 


486  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII. 

stands  connected  with  the  same  verb  as  here.  Whether  this  verb  ever 
means  simply  to  perceive  or  hear,  may  be  considered  doubtful ;  if  not,  the 
preference  is  due  to  the  third  interpretation  above  given,  viz.  that  nothing 
but  distress  or  suffering  could  make  them  understand  or  even  attend  to  the 

o 

message  from  Jehovah. 

V.  20.  For  the  bed  is  too  short  to  stretch  one's  self,  and  the  covering 
too  narrow  to  wrap  one's  self.  This  is  probably  a  proverbial  description  of 
a  perplexed  and  comfortless  condition.  Jerome  absurdly  makes  the  verse  a 
description  of  idolatry  considered  as  a  spiritual  adultery.  The  s  before  the 
last  infinitive  may  be  a  particle  of  time,  meaning  when  one  would  wrap  him- 
self in  it,  which  is  the  explanation  given  by  Cocceius.  The  connexion  with 
the  foregoing  verse  is  this  :  you  cannot  fully  understand  the  lessons  which  I 
teach  you  now  until  your  bed  becomes  too  short  etc. 

V.  21.  For  like  Mount  Perazim  shall  Jehovah  rise  up,  like  the  valley 
in  Gibeon  shall  he  rage,  to  do  his  work,  his  strange  work,  and  to  perform 
his  task,  his  strange  task.  Into  such  a  condition  as  that  just  described  they 
shall  be  brought,  for  some  of  the  most  fearful  scenes  of  ancient  history  are 
yet  to  be  repeated.  Interpreters  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  precise  events 
referred  to  in  the  first  clause.  The  common  opinion  is,  that  it  alludes  to  the 
slaughter  of  the  Philistines  described  in  2  Sam.  5:  18-25  and  1  Chron. 
14:  9-16,  in  the  latter  of  which  places  Gibeon  is  substituted  for  Geba. 
The  valley  meant  will  then  be  the  valley  of  Rephaim.  Ewald,  on  the 
contrary,  applies  the  clause  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Canaanites  by  Joshua, 
when  the  sun  stood  still  on  Gibeon  and  the  moon  in  the  valley  of  Ajalon 
(Josh  10:  7-15).  Still  another  hypothesis  is  that  of  Hendewerk,  who  ap- 
plies the  first  part  of  the  clause  to  the  breach  of  Uzzah  (j~>w  y^Q)  described 
in  2  Sam.  6 :  6-8,  and  the  last  to  the  slaughter  of  Israel  in  the  valley  of 
Achor  (Josh.  7  :  1-26).  The  only  argument  in  favour  of  this  forced  inter- 
pretation is,  that  these  were  cases  in  which  God  took  vengeance,  not  of 
strangers  merely,  but  of  his  own  people.  But  as  there  is  no  mention  of  a 
mountain  in  the  case  of  Uzzah,  nor  of  Gibeon  in  that  of  Achan,  nor  of  Perez 
or  Perazim  in  that  of  Joshua,  neither  Hendewerk's  hypothesis  nor  Ewald's 
is  so  probable  as  that  of  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers,  which  refers  the 
wThole  clause  to  the  double  slaughter  of  the  Philistines  by  David.  That 
these  were  foreigners  and  heathen,  only  adds  to  the  force  of  the  threatening, 
by  making  it  to  mean  that  as  God  had  dealt  with  these  in  former  times,  he 
was  now  about  to  deal  with  the  unbelieving  and  unfaithful  sons  of  Israel. 
It  is  indeed  not  only  implied  but  expressed,  that  he  intended  to  depart  from 
his  usual  mode  of  treating  them,  in  which  sense  the  judgments  here  de- 
nounced are  called  a  strange  work,  i.  e.  foreign  from  the  ordinary  course  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  487 

divine  providence.  The  English  word  strange  is  here  the  only  satisfactory 
equivalent  to  the  two  Hebrew  adjectives  *»J  and  hj-j^j.  The  idea  that  pun- 
ishment is  God's  strange  work  h  at  variance  with  his  goodness,  is  not 
only  less  appropriate  in  this  connexion,  hut  inconsistent  with  the  tenor  of 
Scripture,  which  descrihes  his  vindicatory  justice  as  an  essential  attribute  of 
his  nature.  The  unusual  collocation  of  the  words  "n  and  fijiaj  bas  led  some 
to  explain  them  as  the  predicates  of  short  parenthetical  propositions  (strange 
will  be  his  work  etc.).  But  myst  interpreters,  with  greater  probability, 
suppose  the  adjectives  to  be  prefixed  for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  Like  Mount 
Perazim  is  a  common  idiomatic  abbreviation  of  the  phrase  as  in  (or  at) 
Mount  Perazim. 

V.  22.  And  now  scoff  not  lest  your  bands  be  strong  ;  for  a  consumption 
and  decree  (or  even  a  decreed  consumption)  I  have  heard  from  the  Lord 
Jehovah  of  Hosts,  against  (or  upon)  the  whole  earth.  Some  versions  re- 
tain the  reflexive  form  of  the  first  verb  ;  others  make  it  a  frequentative ;  but 
it  seems  to  be  simply  intensive  or  emphatic.  Bands,  i.  e.  bonds  or  chains,  is 
a  common  figure  for  afflictions  and  especially  for  penal  sufferings.  To 
strengthen  these  bands  is  to  aggravate  the  suffering.  The  last  clause  repre- 
sents the  threatened  judgments  as  inevitable,  because  determined  and  reveal- 
ed by  God  himself.  The  form  of  expression  is  partly  borrowed  from  ch. 
10:  23. 

V.  23.  Give  ear  and  hear  my  voice ;  hearken  and  hear  my  speech. 
This  formula  invites  attention  to  what  follows  as  a  new  view  of  the  subject. 
The  remainder  of  the  chapter  contains  an  extended  illustration  drawn  from 
the  processes  of  agriculture.  Interpreters,  although  agreed  as  to  the  import 
of  the  figures,  are  divided  with  respect  to  their  design  and  application. 
Some  regard  the  passage  as  intended  to  illustrate,  in  a  general  way,  the  wis- 
dom of  the  divine  dispensations.  Others  refer  it  more  specifically  to  the 
delay  of  judgment  on  the  sinner,  and  conceive  the  doctrine  of  the  passage  to 
be  this,  that  although  God  is  not  always  punishing,  any  more  than  the  hus- 
bandman is  always  ploughing  or  always  threshing,  he  will  punish  at  last. 
A  third  interpretation  makes  the  prominent  idea  to  be  this,  that  although  God 
chastises  his  own  people,  his  ultimate  design  is  not  to  destroy  but  to  purify 
and  save  them.  To  these  must  be  added,  as  a  new  hypothesis,  the  one 
maintained  by  Ilitzig  and  Ewald,  who  reject  entirely  the  application  of  the 
passage  to  God's  providential  dealings,  and  apply  it  to  the  conduct  of  men, 
assuming  that  the  Prophet's  purpose  was  to  hold  up  the  proceedings  of  the 
husbandman  as  an  example  to  the  scoffers  whom  he  is  addressing.  As  the 
farmer  does  not  always  plough  or  always  thresh,  nor  thresh  all  grains  alike, 
but  has  a  time  for  either  process  and  a  method  for  each  case,  so  should  you 


438  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII. 

cease  now  from  scoffing  and  receive  instruction.  To  this  explanation  it  may- 
be objected,  first,  that  the  comparison  contained  in  the  passage  does  not 
really  illustrate  the  expediency  of  the  course  proposed  ;  and  secondly,  that 
even  if  it  did,  the  illustration  would  be  too  extended  and  minute  for  a  doc- 
trine so  familiar  and  intelligible.  The  objection  to  the  third  interpretation 
is,  that  the  obvious  design  for  which  the  comparison  is  introduced  is  not  to 
comfort  but  alarm  and  warn.  The  first  interpretation  is  too  vague  and  un- 
connected with  the  context.  The  preference  is  therefore  on  the  whole  due 
to  the  second,  which  supposes  the  prophet  to  explain  by  this  comparison  the 
long  forbearance  of  Jehovah,  and  to  show  that  this  forbearance  was  no  rea- 
son for  believing  that  his  threatenings  would  never  be  fulfilled.  As  the 
husbandman  ploughs  and  harrows,  sows  and  plants,  before  he  reaps  and 
threshes,  and  in  threshing  employs  different  modes  and  different  implements,, 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  grain,  so  God  allows  the  actual  infliction  of  his 
wrath  to  be  preceded  by  what  seems  to  be  a  period  of  inaction  but  is  really 
one  of  preparation,  and  conforms  the  strokes  themselves  to  the  capacity  and 
guilt  of  the  transgressor. 

V.  24.  Does  the  ploughman  plough  every  day  to  sow  1    Does  he  open 
and  level  his  ground  ?     The  common  version  all  day,  though  it  seems  to  be 
a  literal  translation,  does  not  convey  the  sense  of  the   original  expression, 
which  is  used  both  here  and  elsewhere  to  mean  all  the   lime  or  always. 
(Gill  :  he  may  plough  a  whole  day  together  when  he  is  at  it,  but  he  does 
not  plough  every  day  in  the  year ;  he  has  other  work  to  do  besides  plough- 
ing.)    The  interrogation  may  be  confined  to  the  first  clause,  and  the  second 
construed  as  an  exhortation  :   (no)  let  him  open  and  level  his  ground.     But 
as  there  is  a  difficulty  then   in  explaining  what   is   meant   by  opening  the 
ground,  as  distinct  from  opening  the  furrows  with  the  plough,  most  interpre- 
ters suppose  the  interrogation   to  extend   through  the  verse,  and  make  the 
second  clause  a  repetition  of  the  first,  with  an  additional  reference  to  harrow- 
ing.    As  if  he  had  said,  is  the  ploughman  always  ploughing?  is  he  always 
ploughing  and   harrowing  ?     Kimchi  explains  the   last  clause   thus,  as  an 
answer  to  the  question  in  the  first :   (no)  he  will  loose  (his  oxen)  and  harrow 
his  ground. 

V.  25.  Does  he  not,  when  he  has  levelled  the  surface  of  it,  cast  abroad 
dill,  and  scatter  cummin,  and  set  wheat  in  rows,  and  barley  (in  the  place) 
marked  out,  and  spelt  in  his  border  1  That  is  to  say,  he  attends  to  all  these 
processes  of  husbandry  successively,  with  due  regard  to  time  and  place,  and 
to  the  various  crops  to  be  produced.  The  words  TVV®  and  poa  are  by  some 
explained  as  epithets  of  the  grain  ;  principal  wheat,  appointed  or  sealed 
barley.     Ewald  makes   them   descriptive  of  the  soil  ;  wheat  in  the  best 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXVIII.  489 

ground,  bailey  in  the  rough  ground.  But  the  explanation  best  sustained  by 
usage  and  analogy  is  that  of  Gesenius,  who  takes  ',^03  in  the  sense  of  ap- 
pointed, designated,  and  ftrm  in  that  of  a  row  or  series.  This  agrees  well 
with  the  verb  cr  as  denoting  not  an  indiscriminate  sowing,  but  a  careful 
planting,  which  is  said  to  be  still  practised  in  the  oriental  culture  of  wheat, 
and  is  thought  by  Gesenius  and  others  to  have  been  one  of  the  causes  of  the 
wonderful  fertility  of  Palestine  in  ancient  times.  The  suffix  in  wto  probably 
relates  to  the  farmer,  and  the  noun  to  the  edge  of  the  field  in  which  the  other 
grains  are  sown  or  planted.  The  reference  of  the  suffix  to  fc,ro3,  or  to  the 
several  preceding  nouns,  is  very  forced.  Gesenius,  in  order  to  retain  the 
supposed  paronomasia  of  mwi  mitt),  gives  his  version  of  this  clause  the 
form  of  doggerel.   (Waizen  in  Reihen  und  Gerste  hinein.) 

V.  26.  So  teaches  him  aright  his  God  instructs  him.  This  is  the  form 
of  the  Hebrew  sentence,  in  which  his  God  is  the  grammatical  subject  of 
both  the  verbs  between  which  it  stands.  The  English  idiom  requires  the 
noun  to  be  prefixed,  as  in  the  common  version,  and  by  Lowth,  Barnes,  and 
Henderson.  bWBtfc  means  according  to  what  is  right,  i.  e.  correctly.  The 
verse  refers  even  agricultural  skill  to  divine  instruction.  As  parallels  the 
commentators  quote,  from  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (7:  16),  yswQyiav  inb 
vxI'igtov  fxTiGfib'vrjv,  and  from  the  Georgics  (1  :  157),  Prima  Ceres  ferro  mor- 
tales  vertere  terram  instituit.  Joseph  Kimchi  thus  explains  the  verse  :  so  he 
(the  husbandman)  chastises  it  (the  ground,  as)  his  God  teaches  him. 

V.  27.  For  not  with  the  sledge  must  dill  be  threshed,  or  the  cart-wheel 
turned  upon  cummin  ;  for  with  the  stick  must  dill  be  beaten,  and  cummin 
xcith  the  rod.  Having  drawn  an  illustration  from  the  husbandman's  regard 
to  times  and  seasons,  he  now  derives  another  from  his  different  modes  of 
threshing  out  the  different  kinds  of  grain.  The  semina  infirmiora,  as  Jerome 
calls  them,  are  not  to  be  separated  by  the  use  of  the  ponderous  sledge  or 
wagon,  both  of  which  are  common  in  the  east,  but  by  that  of  the  flail  or 
switch,  as  better  suited  to  their  nature.  The  minute  description  of  the 
oriental  threshing-machines  belongs  more  properly  to  books  of  archaeology, 
especially  as  nothing  more  is  necessary  here  to  the  correct  understanding  of 
the  verse  than  a  just  view  of  the  contrast  intended  between  heavy  and  light 
threshing.  The  *3  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  might  be  translated  that 
and  understood  as  introducing  an  explicit  statement  as  to  what  it  is  that  God 
thus  teaches  him.  His  God  instructs  him  that  etc.  This  arrangement  of 
the  sentences,  though  certainly  not  necessary,  makes  them  clearer,  and  is 
favoured  by  the  otherwise  extraordinary  brevity  of  v.  26,  as  well  as  by  its 
seeming  interruption  of  the  intimate  connexion  between  vs.  25  and  27.  An 
objection  to  it,  drawn  from  the  analogy  of  v.  29,  will  be  stated  in  the  ex- 
position of  that  verse. 


490 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXVIII. 


V.  28.  Bread-corn  must  be  crushed,  for  he  will  not  be  always  threshing 
it ;  so  he  drives  the  wheel  of  his  cart  (upon  it),  but  with  his  horsemen  (or 
horses)  he   does  not  crush  it.       The  sense  of  this  verse   is  obscured   by 
an  apparent    inconsistency    between   the  opening  and  the  closing  words. 
Ewald   cuts  the  knot    by   reading  iflw  in   the  former    place.       Umbreit 
takes  Dn|  in  its    proper   sense    of  bread,   and    understands    the    clause  to 
mean  that   bread  is   broken   by  the   teeth  !     Others  make  the  first  clause 
interrogative,  and  thus  conform  it  to  the  express  negation  in  the  last  clause. 
The  translation  above  given  supposes  a  climax  beginning  in  v.  27  and  com- 
pleted here.     Dill  and  cummin  must  be  threshed  out  with  the  flail ;  wheat 
and  barley  may  be  more  severely  dealt  with :  they  will  bear  the  wheel,  but 
not  the  hoofs  of  horses.     The  first  words  and  the  last  are  then  in  strict 
agreement ;  bread-corn  must  be  bruised,  but  not  with  horses'  hoofs.     This 
is  merely  suggested  as  an  additional  attempt  to  elucidate  a  passage  in  detail, 
the  general  sense  of  which  is  clear  enough.     The  reading  "POis  his  hoofs 
(i.  e.  the  hoofs  of  his  cattle)  is  unnecessary,  as  the  use  of  tine  in  the  sense 
of  horse  appears  to  be  admitted  by  the  best  philological  authorities.     The 
historical  objection,  that  the  horse  was  not  in  common  use  for  agricultural 
purposes,  seems  to  be  likewise  regarded  by  interpreters  as  inconclusive. 

V.  29.  Even  this  (or  this  also)  from  Jehovah  of  Hosts  comes  forth  ;  he 
is  wonderful  in  counsel,  great  in  wisdom.  The  literal  translation  of  the 
last  clause  is,  he  makes  counsel  wonderful,  he  makes  wisdom  great.  The 
hiphils  may  however  be  supposed  to  signify  the  exhibition  of  the  qualities 
denoted  by  the  nouns,  or  taken  as  intransitives.  The  antithesis  which  some 
suppose  the  last  clause  to  contain  between  plan  and  execution  (wonderful 
in  counsel  and  excellent  in  working)  is  justified  neither  by  the  derivation  nor 
the  usage  of  P»*##i.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  whole  verse,  some  suppose 
that  the  preceding  illustration  is  here  applied  to  the  divine  dispensations  ; 
others,  that  this  is  the  conclusion  of  the  illustration  itself.  On  the  latter 
hypothesis,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is,  that  the  husbandman's  treatment  of 
the  crop,  no  less  than  his  preparation  of  the  soil,  is  a  dictate  of  experience 
under  divine  teaching.  In  the  other  case,  the  sense  is  that  the  same  mode 
of  proceeding,  which  had  just  been  described  as  that  of  a  wise  husbandman, 
is  also  practised  by  the  Most  High  in  the  execution  of  his  purposes. 
Against  this,  and  in  favour  of  the  other  explanation,  it  may  be  suggested, 
first,  that  coming  forth  from  God  is  a  phrase  not  so  naturally  suited  to  ex- 
press his  own  way  of  acting  as  the  influence  which  he  exerts  on  others  ; 
secondly,  that  this  verse  seems  to  correspond,  in  form  and  sense,  to  v.  27, 
and  to  bear  the  same  relation  to  the  different  modes  of  threshing  that  v.  27 
does  to  the  preparation  of  the  ground  and  the  sowing  of  the  seed.  Having 
there  said  of  the  latter,  that  the  husbandman  is  taught  of  God,  he  now  says 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   XXIX. 

of  the  former,  that  it  also  comes  forth  from  the  sane  celestial  source.  This 
analogy  may  also  serve  to  show  that  v.  27  is  not  a  part  of  v.  28,  and  thereby 
to  make  it  probable  that  "3  at  the  beginning  of  the  latter  is  to  be  translated 
for,  because.  According  to  the  view  which  has  now  been  taken  of  v.  29, 
the  genera]  application  of  the  parable  to  God's  dispensations  is  not  formally 
expressed,  but  left  to  the  reflection  of  the  reader. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 


This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts,  parallel  to  one  another,  i.  e.  each 
containing  the  same  series  of  promises   and   threatenings,  but  in  different 
forms.     The  prophetic  substance  or  material  of  both  is  that  Zion  should  be 
threatened  and  assailed  yet  not  destroyed,  but  on  the  contrary  strengthened 
and  enlarged.     These  ideas  are   expressed  in  the  second  part  much  more 
fully  and  explicitly  than  in  the  first,  which  must  therefore  be  interpreted  ac- 
cording to  what  follows.     In  the  first  part,  the   threatening   is   that  Zion 
shall  be  assailed  by   enemies  and  brought  very  low,  vs.  1-4.     The  prom- 
ise is  that  the  assailants  shall  be  scattered  like  dust  and  chaff,  vanish  like  a 
dream,   and   be  wholly  disappointed  in  their  hostile  purpose,  vs.  5—8.     In 
the  second  part,  the  Prophet  brings  distinctly  into  view,  as  causes  of  the 
threatened  judgments,  the  spiritual  intoxication   and  stupor  of  the  people, 
their  blindness  to  revealed  truth,  their   hypocritical    formality,  and    their 
presumptuous  contempt  of  God,  vs.  9—1 6.     The  judgment  itself  is  described 
as  a  confounding  of  their  fancied  wisdom,  v.  14.     The  added  promise  is  that 
of  an  entire  revolution,  including  the  destruction  of  the  wicked,  and  especially 
of  wicked  rulers,  the  restoration  of  spiritual  sight,  joy  to  the  meek  and  poor 
in  spirit,  and  the  final  recovery  of  Israel  from  a  state  of  alienation  and  dis- 
grace to  the  service  of  Jehovah  and  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
vs.  17-24.     The  attempts  to  explain  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  as  relating 
to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  Sennacherib,  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  Titus,  have 
been  unsuccessful,  partly  because  the  description  is  not  strictly  appropriate 
to  either  of  these  events,  and  partly  because  the  connexion  with  what  fol- 
lows is,  on  either  of  these  suppositions,  wholly  obscure.     Those  who  deny 
the  inspiration  of  the  writer  regard  the  last  part  as  a  visionary  anticipation 
which  was  never  fully  verified.     Those  who  admit  it  are  obliged  to  assume 
an  abrupt  transition  from  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  to  the  calling  of  the  gen- 
tiles.    The  only  key  to  the  consistent  exposition  of  the  chapter  as  a  whole, 
is  furnished  by  the  hypothesis  already  stated,  that  the  two  parts  are  parallel, 


492  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXIX. 

not  merely  successive,  and  that  the  second  must  explain  the  first.     That 
the  second  part  describes  not  physical  but  spiritual  evils,  is  admitted  on  all 
hands,  and  indeed  asserted  by  the  Prophet  himself.     This  description  is  di- 
rectly and  repeatedly  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  the  Jews  contem- 
porary with   our  Saviour.     It  does  not  follow  from  this,  that  it  is  a  specific 
and  exclusive  prophecy  respecting  them  ;  but  it  does  follow  that  it  must  be 
so  interpreted  as  to  include  them,  which  can  only  be  effected  by  regarding 
this  last  part  of  the  chapter  as  descriptive   of  the  Jews,  not   at   one  time 
merely,  but  throughout  the   period  of  the  old  dispensation,  an  assumption 
fully  confirmed  by  history.     The  judgment  threatened  will  then  be  the  loss 
of  their  peculiar  privileges  and  an  exchange   of  state  with  others  who  had 
been  less  favoured,  involving  an  extension  of  the  church  beyond  its  ancient 
bounds,  the   destruction  of  the  old  abuses,  and  the  final  restoration  of  the 
Jews  themselves.     If  this  be  the   meaning  of  the   second  part,  it  seems  to 
determine   that  of  the  first  as  a  figurative  expression  of  the  truth,  that  the 
church  should  suffer  but  not  perish,  the  imagery  used  for  this  purpose  being 
borrowed  from  the  actual  sieges  of  Jerusalem.     Thus  understood,  the  chapter 
is  prophetic  of  two  great  events,  the  seeming   destruction   of  the  ancient 
church,  and  its  reproduction  in  a  new  and  far  more  glorious  form,  so  as  not 
only  to  include  the  gentiles  in  its  bounds,  but  also  the  converted  remnant  of 
God's  ancient  people. 

V.  1 .  Woe  to  Ariel  (or  alas  for  Ariel),  Ariel,  the  city  David  encamped ! 
Add  year  to  year ;  let  the  feasts  revolve.     All  interpreters  agree  that  Ariel 
is  here  a  name  for  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  although  they  greatly  differ  in   the 
explanation  of  the  name  itself.     Besides  the  explanation  which  resolves  the 
form  into  bx-^n  (mountain  of  God),  there  are  two  between  which  interpreters 
are  chiefly  divided.     One  of  these  makes  it  mean  lion  of  God,  i.  e.  a  lion- 
like champion  or  hero  (2  Sam.  23 :  20.  Isai.  33 :  7),  here  applied  to  Jeru- 
salem as  a  city  of  heroes  which  should  never  be  subdued.    This  explanation 
is  retained  not  only  by  Gesenius,  but  by  Ewald,  who,  to  make  the  applica- 
tion more  appropriate,  translates  it  lioness  of  God.     The  other  hypothesis 
explains  it,  from  an  Arabic  analogy,  to  mean  the    hearth  or  fire-place  of 
God,  in  which  sense  it  seems  to  be  applied  to  the  altar  by  Ezekiel  (43  :  15, 
16),  and  the  extension  of  the  name  to  the  whole  city  is  the  more  natural 
because  Isaiah  himself  says  of  Jehovah,  that  his  fire  is  in  Zion  and  his  fur- 
nace in  Jerusalem  (ch.  31  :  9).     Hitzig  supposes  the  name  to  be  here  used 
in  the  first  sense,  but  with  an  allusion  to  the  other  in  the  following  verse. 
This  double  usage  is  the  less  improbable  because  the  name  is  evidently 
meant  to  be  enigmatical.     The  Rabbins  combine  the  two  explanations  of 
the  Hebrew  word  by  supposing  that  the  altar  was  itself  called  the  lion  of 
God,  because  it  devoured  the  victims  like  a  lion,  or  because  the  fire  on  it 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX.  493 

had  the  appearance  of  a  lion,  or  because  the  altar  (or  the  temple)  was  in 
shape  like  a  lion,  that  is,  narrow  behind  and  broad  in  front !  The  city  Da- 
vid encamped  is  an  elliptical  expression  not  unlike  the  Hebrew  one,  in  which 
the  relative  must  be  supplied,  or  p?"jp?  supposed  to  govern  the  whole  phrase 
in  n:n  as  a  noun.  Here  again  there  seems  to  be  a  twofold  allusion  to  Da- 
vid's  siege  and  conquest  of  Zion  (2  Sam.  5:  7),  and  to  his  afterwards  en- 
camping i.  e.  dwelling  there  (2  Sam.  5  :  9).  Add  year  to  year  is  understood 
by  Grotius  to  mean  that  the  prophecy  should  be  fulfilled  in  two  years,  or  in 
other  words,  that  it  was  uttered  just  two  years  before  Sennacherib's  invasion. 
Upon  this  clause  Hitzig  founds  an  ingenious  but  complex  and  artificial 
theory  as  to  the  chronology  of  this  whole  passage  (eh.  xxvm — xxxi). 
Most  interpreters  explain  the  words  as  simply  meaning,  let  the  years  roll  on 
with  the  accustomed  routine  of  ceremonial  services.  Many  of  the  older 
writers  take  the  last  words  of  the  verse  in  this  sense,  let  them  kill  (or  more 
specifically,  cut  off  the  heads  of)  the  sacrificial  victims ;  but  it  is  more  in 
accordance  both  with  the  usage  of  the  words  and  with  the  context,  to  give 
c^an  its  usual  sense  of  feasts  or  festivals,  and  Cjgj  that  of  moving  in  a  circle 
or  revolving,  which  it  has  in  Hiphil.  The  phrase  then  corresponds  exactly 
to  the  one  preceding,  add  year  to  year. 

V.  2  And  I  will  distress  Ariel,  and  there  shall  be  sadness  and  sorrow, 
and  it  shall  be  to  me  as  Ariel.  Let  the  years  revolve  and  the  usual  routine 
continue,  but  the  time  is  coming  when  it  shall  be  interrupted.  The  words 
translated  sadness  and  sorrow  are  collateral  derivatives  from  one  root.  The 
best  imitation  of  the  form  of  the  original  is  that  given  by  Vitringa  (moeror 
ac  moestitia).  The  last  clause  may  be  either  a  continuation  of  the  threat- 
ening or  an  added  promise.  If  the  former,  the  meaning  probably  is,  it  shall 
be  indeed  a  furnace  or  an  altar,  i.  e.  when  the  fire  of  affliction  or  divine 
wrath  shall  be  kindled  on  it.  If  the  latter,  it  shall  still  be  a  city  of  heroes, 
and  as  such  withstand  its  enemies.  Or,  combining  both  the  senses  of  the 
enigmatical  name,  it  shall  burn  like  a  furnace,  but  resist  like  a  lion. 

V.  3.  And  I  will  camp  against  thee  round  about  (literally,  as  a  ring  or 
circle),  and  push  against  thee  (or  press  upon  thee  with)  a  post  (or  body  of 
troops),  and  raise  against  thee  ramparts  (or  entrenchments).  The  siege  of 
Ariel  is  now  represented  as  the  work  of  God  himself,  which,  although  it 
admits  of  explanation  as  referring  merely  to  his  providential  oversight  and 
control,  seems  here  to  be  significant,  as  intimating  that  the  siege  described 
is  not  a  literal  one.  The  dubious  phrase  5272  "f»ki  'WP  is  understood  by 
Ewald  as  meaning,  J  enclose  thee  with  a  wall,  or  literally,  close  a  wall 
around  thee.  To  the  supposition  that  these  words  relate  to  Sennacherib's 
attack  upon  Jerusalem,  it  has  been  objected  that  the  history  contains  no 


494  ISAIAH.  CHAP.  XXIX. 

record  of  an  actual  siege.  Henderson,  indeed,  says  that  there  cannot  be  a 
doubt  that  they  occupied  themselves  with  hostile  demonstrations  while  the 
negotiations  were  going  forward  ;  but,  in  spite  of  this  assurance,  there  is 
still  room  for  suspicion  that  this  verse  does  not  after  all  relate  to  the  Assyrian 
incursion. 

V.  4.  And  thou  shalt  be  brought  down,  out  of  the  ground  shalt  thou 
speak,  and  thy  speech  shall  be  low  out  of  the  dust,  and  thy  voice  shall  be 
like  (the  voice  of)  a  spirit,  out  of  the  ground,  and  out  of  the  dust  shall  thy 
speech  mutter.  Grotius  understands  this  of  the  people's  hiding  themselves 
in  subterranean  retreats  during  Sennacherib's  invasion,  while  Vitringa  shows 
from  Josephus  that  such  measures  were  actually  adopted  during  the  Roman 
siege  of  Jerusalem.  But  the  simple  meaning  naturally  suggested  by  the 
words  is,  that  the  person  here  addressed,  to  wit,  the  city  or  its  population, 
should  be  weakened  and  humbled.  Some  suppose  the  voice  to  be  compared 
with  that  of  a  dying  man  or  a  departing  spirit,  others  with  that  of  a  necro- 
mancer who  pretended  to  evoke  the  dead.  To  this  last  the  terms  of  the  com- 
parison would  be  the  more  appropriate  if,  as  the  modern  writers  commonly 
suppose,  the  ancient  necromancers  used  ventriloquism  as  a  means  of  prac- 
tising upon  the  credulous.  The  last  verb  properly  denotes  any  feeble  inar- 
ticulate sound,  and  is  applied  in  ch.  10:  14  and  38:  14  to  the  chirping  or 
twittering  of  birds. 

V.  5.   Then  shall  be  like  fine  dust  the  multitude  of  thy  strangers,  and 
like  passing  chaff  the  multitude  of  the  terrible  ones,  and  it  shall  be  in  a 
moment  suddenly.     Calvin  understands  by  strangers  foreign  allies  or  merce- 
nary troops,  which  he  supposes  to  be  here  described  as  powerless  and  as 
enduring  but  a  moment.     Others  among  the  older  writers  take  strangers 
more  correctly  in  the  sense  of  enemies,  but  understand  the  simile  as  merely 
descriptive  of  their  numbers  and  velocity.    It  is  now  very  commonly  agreed, 
however,  that  the  verse  describes  their  sudden  and  complete  dispersion. 
The  absence  of  but  at  the  beginning,  or  some  other  indication  that  the  writer 
is  about  to  pass  from  threats  to  promises,  although  it  renders  the  connexion 
more  obscure,  increases  the  effect  of  the  description.     Ewald  instead  of 
multitude  has  tumult,  which  is  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word ;  but  the 
former  is  clearly  established  by  usage,  and  is  here  much  more  appropriate, 
since  it  is  not  the  noise  of  a  great  crowd,  but  the  crowd  itself,  that  can  be 
likened  to  fine  dust  or  flitting  chaff,  as  Lowth  poetically  renders  it.     The 
terms  of  this  verse  readily  suggest  the  sudden  fall  of  the  Assyrian  host,  nor 
is  there  any  reason  for  denying  that  the  Prophet  had  a  view  to  it  in  choos- 
ing his  expressions.     But  that  this  is  an  explicit  and  specific  prophecy  of 
that  event  is  much  less  probable,  as  well  because  the  terms  are  in  themselves 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXIX.  VX> 

appropriate  to  any  case  of  sudden  and  complete  dispersion,  as  because  the 
context  contains  language  wholly  inappropriate  to  the  slaughter  of  Senna- 
cherib's army.  To  the  Babylonian  and  Roman  sieges,  which  were  both 
successful,  the  verse  before  us  n  entirely  inapplicable.  These  considera- 
tions, although  negative  and  inconclusive  in  themselves,  tend  strongly  to 
confirm  the  supposition  founded  on  the  last  part  of  the  chapter,  that  the  first 
contains  a  strong  metaphorical  description  of  the  evils  which  Jerusalem 
should  suffer  at  the  hands  of  enemies,  but  without  exclusive  reference  to  any 
one  siege,  or  to  sieges  in  the  literal  sense  at  all.  That  the  evils  which  the 
last  part  of  the  chapter  brings  to  light  are  of  a  spiritual  nature,  and  not  con- 
fined to  any  single  period,  is  a  fact  which  seems  to  warrant  the  conclusion, 
or  at  least  to  raise  a  strong  presumption,  that  the  Ariel  of  this  passage  is 
Zion  or  Jerusalem  considered  only  as  the  local  habitation  of  the  church. 

V.  6.  From  with  (i.  e.  from  the  presence  of)  Jehovah  of  hosts  shall  it 
be  visited  with  thunder  and  earthquake  and  great  noise,  tempest  and  storm 
and  flame  of  devouring  fire.  Vitringa  refers  this  to  the  singular  phenomena 
which  are  said  to  have  preceded  and  accompanied  the  taking  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus.  This  application  may  be  admitted,  in  the  same  sense  and  on  the 
same  ground  with  the  allusion  to  Sennacherib's  host  in  the  foregoing  verse. 
But  that  the  prophecy  is  not  a  prophecy  of  either  catastrophe,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  neither  is  described  in  the  context.  Indeed,  the 
direct  application  of  this  verse  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  is  wholly  inadmissible, 
since  the  preceding  verse  describes  the  assailants  as  dispersed,  and  this  ap- 
pears to  continue  the  description.  As  Tgttjn  can  be  either  the  third  person 
feminine  or  the  second  masculine,  the  verse  may  be  considered  as  addressed 
directly  to  the  enemy  ;  or  the  verb  may  agree  with  pen  as  a  feminine  noun, 
in  which  way  it  is  construed  elsewhere  (Job  31  :  34),  although  evidently 
masculine  in  v.  8  below.  The  city  cannot  be  addressed,  because  the  verb 
must  then  be  feminine,  and  the  preceding  verse  forbids  the  one  before  us  to 
be  taken  as  a  threatening  against  Ariel. 

V.  7.  Then  shall  be  as  a  dream,  a  vision  of  the  night,  the  multitude  of 
all  the  nations  fighting  against  Ariel,  even  all  that  fight  against  her  and 
her  munition  and  distress  her.  Calvin  understands  this  to  mean  that  the 
enemy  shall  take  her  unawares,  as  one  awakes  from  a  dream.  The  modern 
writers  generally  understand  both  this  verse  and  the  next  as  meaning  that  the 
enemy  himself  should  be  wholly  disappointed  and  his  vain  hopes  vanish  as  a 
dream.  But  the  true  sense  appears  to  be  the  one  proposed  by  Grotius  and 
others,  who  regard  the  comparisons  in  these  two  verses  as  distinct  though 
similar,  the  enemy  being  first  compared  to  a  dream  and  then  to  a  dreamer. 
He  who  threatens  your  destruction  shall  vanish  like  a  dream,  par  levibus 


496 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXIX. 


vends  volucrique  simillima  somno.  He  who  threatens  your  destruction  shall 
awake  as  from  a  dream,  and  find  himself  cheated  of  his  expectations,  for,  as 
Grotius  beautifully  says,  spes  sunt  vigilantium  somnia.  These  seem  to  be 
the  two  comparisons  intended,  both  of  which  are  perfectly  appropriate,  and 
one  of  which  might  readily  suggest  the  other.  The  feminine  pronouns  may 
refer  to  Ariel  as  itself  a  feminine,  or  to  the  city  which  it  represents. 

V.  8.  And  it  shall  be  as  when  the  hungry  dreams,  and  lo  he  eats,  and 
lie  awakes,  and  his  soul  is  empty ;  and  as  when  the  thirsty  dreams,  and  lo 
he  drinks,  and  he  awakes,  and  lo  he  is  faint  and  his  soul  craving :  so  shall 
be  the  multitude  of  all  the  nations  that  fight  against  Mount  Zion.  The 
meaning  of  this  beautiful  comparison  seems  so  clear,  and  its  application  to 
the  disappointment  of  the  enemies  of  Ariel  so  palpable,  that  it  is  hard  to 
understand  how  such  an  interpreter  as  Calvin  could  say,  JSihil  hie  video 
quod  ad  consolationem  pertineat.  His  explanation  of  the  verse  as  meaning 
that  the  Jews  should  be  awakened  by  the  enemy  from  their  dream  of  se- 
curity and  find  themselves  wholly  unprovided  with  the  necessary  means  of 
defence,  is  forced  and  arbitrary  in  a  high  degree,  and  seems  the  more  so 
when  propounded  by  a  writer  who  is  characteristically  free  from  all  propen- 
sity to  strained  and  far-fetched  expositions.  In  this  verse  soul  is  twice  used 
in  the  not  uncommon  sense  of  appetite,  first  described  as  empty  (i.  e.  unsat- 
isfied) and  then  as  craving.  This  is  much  better  than  to  take  the  word, 
with  Grotius,  as  a  mere  periphrasis  for  the  man  himself.  To  this  verse 
Lowth  quotes  a  beautiful  but  certainly  inferior  parallel  from  Lucretius : 

Ac  velut  in  somnis  sitiens  quum  quaerit,  et  humor 
Non  datur,  ardorem  in  membris  qui  stinguere  possit, 
Sed  laticum  simulacra  petit,  frustraque  laborat, 
In  medioque  sitit  torrenti  flumine  potans. 

The  passage  quoted  from  Virgil  by  the  same  accomplished  critic  is  not  so 
apposite  because  more  general.  A  less  poetical  but  not  Jess  striking  and 
affecting  parallel  from  real  life  is  found  in  one  of  Mungo  Park's  journals, 
and  pertinently  quoted  here  by  Barnes.  "  No  sooner  had  I  shut  my  eyes 
than  fancy  would  convey  me  to  the  streams  and  rivers  of  my  native  land. 
There,  as  I  wandered  along  the  verdant  bank,  I  surveyed  the  clear  stream 
with  transport,  and  hastened  to  swallow  the  delightful  draught ;  but  alas ! 
disappointment  awakened  me,  and  I  found  myself  a  lonely  captive,  perishing 
of  thirst  amid  the  wilds  of  Africa." 

V.  9.  Waver  and  wonder !  be  merry  and  blind !  They  are  drunk,  but 
not  with  wine ;  they  reel,  but  not  with  strong  drink.  Here  begins  the 
description  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  evils  which  were  the  occasion  of  the 
judgments  previously  threatened.     In  the  first  clause,  the  Prophet  describes 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX.  497 

the  condition  of  the  people  by  exhorting  them  ironically  to  continue  in  it ; 
in  the  second,  he  seems  to  turn  away  from  them  and  address  the  spectators. 
The  terms  of  the  first  clause  are  very  obscure.    In  each  of  its  members  two 
cognate  verbs  are  used,  but  whether  as  synonymous,  or  as  expressing  differ- 
ent ideas,  appears  doubtful.     Ewald   adopts  the  former  supposition,  and 
regards  the  first  two  as  denoting  wonder  (erstaunt  und  staunt),  the  last  two 
blindness    (erblindet   und  blindet).     Gesenius,  on  the  contrary,  supposes 
verbs  alike  in  form  but  different  in  sense  to  be  designedly  combined.     To 
the  first  he  gives  the  sense  of  lingering,  hesitating,  doubting ;  to  the  second, 
that  of  wondering ;  to  the  third,  that  of  taking  pleasure  or  indulging  the 
desires  ;  to  the  fourth,  that  of  being  blind.    The  second  imperative  in  either 
case  he  understands  as  indicating  the  effect  or  consequence  of  that  before 
it :  refuse  to  believe,  but  you  will  only  be  the  more  astonished ;  continue 
to  enjoy  yourselves,  but  it  will  only  be  the  means  of  blinding  you.     The 
express  description  of  the  drunkenness  as  spiritual  shows,  that  where  no  such 
explanation  is  added  (as  in  ch.  28:  1,  7),  the  terms  are  to  be  literally 
understood.      By  spiritual    drunkenness   we   are    probably   to  understand 
unsteadiness  of  conduct  and  a  want  of  spiritual  discernment. 

V.  10.  For  Jehovah  hath  poured  out  upon  you  a  spirit  of  deep  sleep 
and  hath  shut  your  eyes ;  the  prophets  and  your  heads  (or  even  your  heads) 
the  seers  hath  he  covered.  On  the  agency  here  ascribed  to  God,  see  the 
exposition  of  ch.  6  :  9,  10.  The  two  ideas  expressed  in  the  parallel  clauses 
are  those  of  bandaging  the  eyes  and  covering  the  head  so  as  to  obstruct  the 
sight.  In  the  latter  cas  ethe  Prophet  makes  a  special  application  of  the 
figure  to  the  chiefs  or  religious  leaders  of  the  people,  as  if  he  had  said,  he 
hath  shut  your  eyes,  and  covered  your  heads,  viz.  the  prophets.  Some 
have  proposed  to  make  the  clauses  more  symmetrical  by  changing  the 
division  of  the  sentence  so  as  to  read  thus,  he  hath  shut  your  eyes,  the 
prophets,  and  your  heads,  the  seers,  hath  he  covered.  Others,  because  the 
Prophet  did  not  use  a  commonplace  expression  or  conform  to  the  petty 
rules  of  rhetoric,  reject  prop  he  ts  and  seers  as  a  gloss  accidentally  transferred 
from  the  margin.  One  of  the  reasons  given  for  this  bold  mutilation  of  the 
text  is,  that  the  subject  of  the  previous  description  is  not  the  prophets  but 
the  people ;  as  if  the  former  were  not  evidently  mentioned  as  the  leaders  of 
the  latter.  The  people  were  blinded  by  rendering  the  revelations  of  the 
prophets  useless.  To  produce  the  usual  confusion,  Ewald,  though  he  strikes 
out  o^aoas,  insists  upon  retaining  G^tn  as  an  adjective  agreeing  with  oaittten 
(jyour  seeing  heads).  This  amendment  of  Gesenius's  amendment  has  the 
good  effect  of  making  both  ridiculous,  and  showing  that  the  common  text, 
with  all  its  difficulties,  is  best  entitled  to  respect  and  confidence. 

32 


498 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX. 


V.  11.  And  the  vision  of  all  (or  of  the  whole)  is  (or  has  become)  to 
you  like  the  words  of  the  sealed  writing,  which  they  give  to  one  "knowing 
writing,  saying,  Pray  read  this,  and  he  says,  I  cannot,  for  it  is  sealed.  The 
vision  of  all  may  either  mean  of  all  the  prophets,  or  collectively  all  vision, 
or  the  vision  of  all  things,  i.  e.  prophecy  on  all  subjects  (Ewald  :  Weissa- 
gung  uber  alles).  Gesenius  arbitrarily  takes  vision  in  the  sense  of  law.  If 
we  depart  from  that  of  prophecy,  the  most  appropriate  sense  would  be  the 
primary  one  of  sight.  The  English  word  book  does  not  exactly  represent 
the  Hebrew  ->5&,  which  originally  signifies  writing  in  general  or  any  thing 
written  (Hendewerk :  Schrift),  and  is  here  used  as  we  might  use  document 
or  the  still  more  general  term  paper.  J.  D.  Michaelis  employs  the  specific 
term  letter,  which  the  Hebrew  word  in  some  cases  denotes.  In  the  phrase 
"ibg  si"1,  the  last  word  seems  to  mean  writing  in  general,  and  the  whole 
phrase  one  who  understands  it  or  knows  how  to  read  it.  The  application 
of  the  simile  becomes  clear  in  the  next  verse. 


V.  12.  And  the  writing  is  given  to  one  who  knows  not  writing,  saying, 
Pray  read  this,  and  he  says,  1  know  not  writing.  The  common  version,  1 
am  not  learned,  is  too  comprehensive  and  indefinite.  A  man  might  read  a 
letter  without  being  learned,  at  least  in  the  modern  sense,  although  the  word 
was  once  the  opposite  of  illiterate  or  wholly  ignorant.  In  this  case  it  is 
necessary  to  the  full  effect  of  the  comparison,  that  the  phrase  should  be 
distinctly  understood  to  mean,  I  cannot  read.  The  comparison  itself  repre- 
sents the  people  as  alike  incapable  of  understanding  the  divine  communica- 
tions, or  rather  as  professing  incapacity  to  understand  them,  some  upon  the 
general  ground  of  ignorance,  and  others  on  the  ground  of  their  obscurity. 

V.  13.  And  the  Lord  said,  Because  this  people  draws  near  with  its 
mouth,  and  with  its  lips  they  honour  me,  and  its  heart  it  puts  (or  keeps)  far 
from  me,  and  their  fearing  me  is  (or  has  become)  a  precept  of  men,  (a  thing) 
taught.  The  apodosis  follows  in  the  next  verse.  Some  read  to  for  c5m 
and  understand  the  clause  to  mean,  they  are  compelled  to  honour  me,  they 
serve  me  by  compulsion ;  or,  when  they  are  oppressed  and  afflicted,  then 
they  honour  me.  The  common  reading  is  no  doubt  the  true  one.  Ewald 
makes  prn  an  intransitive  verb  (wanders  far  from  me),  which  is  contrary  to 
usage.  The  singular  and  plural  pronouns  are  promiscuously  used  in  this 
verse  with  respect  to  Israel  considered  as  a  nation  and  an  individual.  At 
the  end  of  the  verse  the  English  Version  has,  taught  by  the  precept  of  men  ; 
but  a  simpler  construction,  and  one  favoured  by  the  accents,  is  to  take  rfroita 
as  a  neuter  adjective  without  a  substantive  in  apposition  with  mxe*  This 
clause  might  be  simply  understood  to  mean,  that  they  served  God  merely  in 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX.  499 

obedience  to  human  authority.  It  would  then  of  course  imply  no  censure 
on  the  persons  thus  commanding,  but  only  on  the  motives  of  those  by  whom 
they  were  obeyed.  In  our  Saviour's  application  of  the  passage  to  the  hypo- 
crites of  his  day  (Matthew  15:  7-9),  he  explains  their  teachings  as  human 
corruptions  of  the  truth,  by  which  the  commandment  of  God  was  made  of 
none  efiect.  The  expressions  of  the  Prophet  may  have  been  so  chosen  as 
to  be  applicable  either  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  when  the  worship  of  Jeho- 
vah was  enforced  by  human  authority,  or  to  the  time  of  Christ,  when  the 
rulers  of  the  people  had  corrupted  and  made  void  the  law  by  their  additions. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  suppose,  with  Henderson,  that  this  corruption  had 
already  reached  a  great  height  when  Isaiah  wrote.  The  apparent  reference, 
in  this  description,  to  the  Jews  not  at  one  time  only  but  throughout  their 
history,  tends  to  confirm  the  supposition,  that  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  is 
not  any  one  specific  juncture,  and  that  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  is  not  a 
prediction  of  any  one  siege  of  Jerusalem  exclusively. 

V.  14.  Therefore,  behold,  I  will  add  (or  continue)  to  treat  this  people 
strangely,  very  strangely,  and  with  strangeness,  and  the  wisdom  of  its  wise 
ones  shall  be  lost  (or  perish),  and  the  prudence  of  its  prudent  ones  shall 
hide  itself  i.  e.  for  shame,  or  simply  disappear.  This  is  the  conclusion  of 
the  sentence  which  begins  with  the  preceding  verse.  Because  they  draw 
near  etc.  therefore  I  will  add  etc.  cpsi"1  is  explained  by  some  as  an  unusual 
form  of  the  participle  for  Bjbta ;  but  the  latest  interpreters  make  it  as  usual 
the  third  person  of  the  future,  and  regard  the  construction  as  elliptical. 
Behold,  I  (am  he  who)  will  add  etc.  See  a  similar  construction  of  the 
preterite  inch.  28:  16.  »^?rt  is  strictly  to  make  wonderful,  but  when 
applied  to  persons,  to  treat  wonderfully,  i.  e.  in  a  strange  or  extraordinary 
manner.  The  idiomatic  repetition  of  the  verb  with  its  cognate  noun  (xbsn 
K&tf)  cannot  be  fully  reproduced  in  English.  The  literal  translation  (Jo 
make  wonderful  and  wonder)  would  be  quite  unmeaning  to  an  English 
reader.  The  nature  of  the  judgment  here  denounced  seems  to  show  that 
the  corruption  of  the  people  was  closely  connected  with  undue  reliance 
upon  human  wisdom.  (Compare  ch.  5:  21.) 

V.  15.  Woe  unto  those  (or  alas  for  those)  going  deep  from  Jehovah  to 
hide  counsel  (i.  e.  laying  their  plans  deep  in  the  hope  of  hiding  them  from 
God),  and  their  works  (are)  in  the  dark,  and  they  say,  Who  sees  us  and 
who  knows  us  1  This  is  a  further  description  of  the  people  or  their  leaders, 
as  not  only  wise  in  their  own  conceit,  but  as  impiously  hoping  to  deceive 
God  or  elude  his  notice.  The  absurdity  of  such  an  expectation  is  exposed 
in  the  following  verse.  In  the  last  clause  of  this,  the  interrogative  form 
implies  negation. 


500  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX. 

V.  16.    Your  perversion!    Is  (he potter  to  be  reckoned  as  the  clay  (and 
nothing  more),  that  the  thing  made  should  say  of  its  maker,  he  made  me 
not,  and  the  thing  formed  say  of  its  former,  he  does  not  understand!     The 
attempt  to  hide  any  thing  from  God  implies  that  he  has  not  a  perfect  know- 
ledge of  his  creatures,  which  is  practically  to  reduce  the  maker  and  the 
thing  made  to  a  level.     With  this  inversion  or  perversion  of  the  natural 
relation  between  God  and  man,  the  Prophet  charges  them  in  one  word 
(o23srj).     The  old  construction  of  this  word  as  nominative  to  the  verb 
(your  turning  of  things  upside  down  shall  be  esteemed  etc.)  appears  to  be 
forbidden  by  the  accents  and  by  the  position  of  the  c«.     That  of  Barnes 
(your  perverseness  is  as  if  the  potter  etc.)  arbitrarily  supplies  not  only  an 
additional  verb  but  a  particle  of  comparison.    Most  of  the  recent  writers  are 
agreed  in  construing  the  first  word  as  an  exclamation,  oh  your  perverseness ! 
i.  e.  how  perverse  you  are !  in  which  sense  it  had  long  before  been  para- 
phrased by  Luther  (wie  seyd  ihr  so  verkehrtT).    Both  the  derivation  of  the 
word,  however,  and  the  context  here  seem  to  demand  the  sense  perversion 
rather  than  perverseness.    The  verse  seems  intended  not  so  much  to  rebuke 
their  perverse  disposition,  as  to  show  that  by  their  conduct  they  subverted  the 
distinction  between  creature  and  creator,  or  placed  them  in  a  preposterous 
relation  to  each  other.     Thus  understood,  the  word  may  be  thus  para- 
phrased :   (this  is)  your  (own)  perversion  (of  the  truth,  or  of  the  true  rela- 
tion between  God  and  man.)     The  English  Version  puts  the  following 
nouns  in  regimen  (like  the  potter's  clay),  but  the  other  construction  (the 
potter  like  the  clay)  is  so  plainly  required  by  the  context,  that  Gesenius  and 
others   disregard  the  accents  by  which  it  seems  to  be  forbidden.     Hitzig, 
however,  denies  that  the  actual  accentuation  is  at  all  at  variance  with  the 
new  construction.     The  preposition  b  is  here  used  in  its  proper  sense  as 
signifying  general  relation,  with  respect  to,  as  to.    By  translating  ^for,  the 
connexion  of  the  clauses  becomes  more  obscure. 

V.  17.  Is  it  not  yet  a  very  little  while,  and  Lebanon  shall  turn  (or  be 
turned)  to  the  fruitful  fi eld,  and  the  fruitful  f  eld  be  reckoned  to  the  forest 
(i.  e.  reckoned  as  belonging  to  it,  or  as  being  itself  a  forest)  ?  The  negative 
interrogation  is  one  of  the  strongest  forms  of  affirmation.  That  ^pS*3  is  not 
the  proper  name  of  the  mountain,  may  be  inferred  from  the  article,  which  is 
not  prefixed  to  Lebanon.  The  mention  of  the  latter  no  doubt  suggested 
that  of  the  ambiguous  term  Carmel,  which  is  both  a  proper  name  and  an 
appellative.  For  its  sense  and  derivation  see  the  commentary  on  ch. 
10  :  18.  The  metaphors  of  this  verse  evidently  signify  a  great  revolution. 
Some  suppose  it  to  be  meant  that  the  lofty  (Lebanon)  shall  be  humbled 
and  the  lowly  (Carmel)  exalted.  But  the  comparison  is  evidently  not  be- 
tween the  high  and  the  low,  but  between  the  cultivated  and  the  wild,  the  field 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXIX.  501 

and  the  forest.  Some  make  both  clauses  of  the  verse  a  promise,  by  explain- 
ing the  last  to  mean  that  what  is  now  esteemed  a  fruitful  field  shall  then  ap- 
pear to  be  a  forest  in  comparison.  But  the  only  natural  interpretation  of 
the  verse  is  that  which  regards  it  as  prophetic  of  a  mutual  change  of  con- 
dition, the  first  becoming  last  and  the  last  first.  If,  as  we  have  seen 
sufficient  reason  to  believe,  the  previous  context  has  respect  to  the  Jews 
under  the  old  dispensation,  nothing  can  be  more  appropriate  or  natural  than 
to  understand  the  verse  before  as  foretelling  the  excision  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews  and  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  church. 

V.  18.  And  in  that  day  shall  the  deaf  hear  the  words  of  the  book  (or 
writing),  and  out  of  obscurity  and  darkness  shall  the  eyes  of  the  blind  see. 
This  is  a  further  description  of  the  change  just  predicted  under  other  figures. 
As  the  forest  was  to  be  transformed  into  a  fruitful  field,  so  the  blind  should  be 
made  to  see  and  the  deaf  to  hear.  There  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  figure  of 
the  sealed  book  or  writing  in  vs.  13,  14.  The  Jews  could  only  plead  ob- 
scurity or  ignorance  as  an  excuse  for  not  understanding  the  revealed  will  of 
God.  The  Gentiles,  in  their  utter  destitution,  might  be  rather  likened  to  the 
blind  who  cannot  read,  however  clear  the  light  or  plain  the  writing,  and  the 
deaf  who  cannot  even  hear  what  is  read  by  others.  But  the  time  was  com- 
ing when  they,  who  would  not  break  the  seal  or  learn  the  letters  of  the 
written  word,  should  be  abandoned  to  their  chosen  state  of  ignorance,  while 
on  the  other  hand,  the  blind  and  deaf,  whose  case  before  seemed  hopeless, 
should  begin  to  see  and  hear  the  revelation  once  entirely  inaccessible.  The 
perfect  adaptation  of  this  figurative  language  to  express  the  new  relation  of 
the  Jews  and  Gentiles  after  the  end  of  the  old  economy  affords  a  new  proof 
that  the  prophecy  relates  to  that  event. 

V.  19.  And  the  humble  shall  add  joy  (i.  e.  shall  rejoice  more  and  more) 
in  Jehovah y  and  the  poor  among  men  in  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  shall  rejoice. 
As  the  preceding  verse  describes  the  happy  effect  of  the  promised  change 
upon  the  intellectual  views  of  those  who  should  experience  it,  so  this  de- 
scribes its  influence  in  the  promotion  of  their  happiness.  Not  only  should 
the  ignorant  be  taught  of  God,  but  the  wretched  should  be  rendered  happy 
in  the  enjoyment  of  his  favour.  The  poor  of  men,  i.  e.  the  poor  amon^ 
them. 

V.  20.  For  the  violent  is  at  an  end,  and  the  scoffer  ceaseth,  and  all  the 
watchers  for  injustice  are  cut  off.  A  main  cause  of  the  happiness  foretold 
will  be  the  weakening  or  destruction  of  all  evil  influences,  here  reduced  to 
the  three  great  classes  of  violent  wrong-doing,  impious  contempt  of  truth  and 
goodness,  and  malignant  treachery  or  fraud,  which  watches  for  the  oppor- 


502  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX. 

tunity  of  doing  evil,  with  as  constant  vigilance  as  ought  to  be  employed  in 
watching  for  occasions  of  redressing  wrong  and  doing  justice.  This  is  a 
change  which,  to  some  extent,  has  always  attended  the  diffusion  of  the  true 
religion.  Gesenius  connects  this  verse  with  the  foregoing  as  a  statement  of 
the  cause  for  which  the  humble  would  rejoice,  viz.  that  the  oppressor  is  no 
more,  etc.  But  this  construction  is  precluded  by  the  fact,  that  wherever  men 
are  said  to  rejoice  in  God,  he  is  himself  the  subject  of  their  joy.  It  is  how- 
ever a  mere  question  of  grammatical  arrangement,  not  affecting  the  general 
import  of  the  passage. 

V.  21.  Making  a  man  a  sinner  for  a  word,  and  for  him  disputing  in 
the  gate  they  laid  a  snare,  and  turned  aside  the  righteous  through  deceit. 
An  amplification  of  the  last  phrase  in  the  foregoing  verse.  Some  understand 
the  first  clause  to  mean,  seducing  people  into  sin  by  their  words.  It  is  much 
more  common  to  explain  im  as  meaning  a  judicial  cause  or  matter,  which 
use  of  the  word  occurs  in  Exodus  18  :  16.  <  The  whole  phrase  may  then 
mean  unjustly  condemning  a  man  in  his  cause,  which  agrees  well  with  the 
obvious  allusion  to  forensic  process  in  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  Ewald 
however  takes  "o^s  in  the  same  sense  with  the  English  and  many  other 
early  versions,  which  explain  the  clause  to  mean  accusing  or  condemning 
men  for  a  mere  error  of  the  tongue  or  lips.  The  general  sense  is  plain,  viz. 
that  they  embrace  all  opportunities  and  use  all  arts  to  wrong  the  guiltless. 
Another  old  interpretation,  now  revived  by  Ewald,  is  that  of  trvfi'Q  as  meaning 
one  that  reproves  others.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  take  it  in  the  sense  of 
arguing,  disputing,  pleading,  in  the  gate,  i.  e.  the  court,  often  held  in  the 
gates  of  oriental  cities.  The  other  explanation  supposes  the  gate  to  be 
mentioned  only  as  a  place  of  public  concourse.  Ewald  translates  it  in  the 
market-place.  By  the  turning  aside  of  the  righteous  (i.  e.  of  the  party  who 
is  in  the  right)  we  are  here  to  understand  the  depriving  him  of  that  which  is 
his  due.  For  the  meaning  and  usage  of  the  figure,  see  the  commentary  on 
ch.  10:  2.  istns  has  been  variously  understood  to  mean  through  falsehood 
(with  particular  reference  to  false  testimony),  or  by  means  of  a  judgment 
which  is  null  and  void,  or  for  nothing  i.  e.  without  just  cause.  In  either 
case  the  phrase  describes  the  perversion  or  abuse  of  justice  by  dishonest 
means,  and  thus  agrees  with  the  expressions  used  in  the  foregoing  clauses. 

V.  22.  Therefore  thus  saith  Jehovah  to  the  house  of  Jacob,  he  who  re- 
deemed Abraham,  Not  now  shall  Jacob  be  ashamed,  and  not  now  shall  his 
face  turn  pale.  The  Hebrew  phrase  not  now  does  not  imply  that  it  shall 
be  so  hereafter,  but  on  the  contrary  that  it  shall  be  so  no  more.  Gesenius 
and  others  render  bx  of  or  concerning  because  Jacob  is  immediately  after- 
wards mentioned  in  the  third  person  ;  but  this  might  be  the  case  consistently 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX.  503 

with  usage,  even  in  a  promise  made  directly  to  himself.  That  ■7011  refers  to 
the  remoter  antecedent,  must  be  obvious  to  every  reader ;  if  it  did  not,  Jacob 
would  be  described  as  tho  redeemer  of  Abraham.  There  is  conse- 
quently not  the  slightest  ground  for  Lowth's  correction  of  the  text  by  read- 
ing bx  instead  of  bi<  (the  God  of  the  house  of  Jacob).  There  is  no  need  of 
referring  the  redemption  of  Abraham  to  his  removal  from  a  land  of  idolatry. 
The  phrase  may  be  naturally  understood,  either  as  signifying  deliverance 
from  danger  and  the  divine  protection  generally,  or  in  a  higher  sense  as 
signifying  Abraham's  conversion  and  salvation.  Seeker  and  Lowth  read 
"nam  for  wim,  because  paleness  is  not  a  natural  indication  of  confusion. 
Other  interpreters  affirm  that  it  is ;  but  the  true  explanation  seems  to  be  that 
shame  and  fear  are  here  combined  as  strong  and  painful  emotions  from  which 
Jacob  should  be  henceforth  free.  Calvin  and  others  understand  by  Jacob 
here  the  patriarch  himself,  poetically  represented  as  beholding  and  sympa- 
thizing with  the  fortunes  of  his  own  descendants.  Most  interpreters  suppose 
the  name  to  be  employed  like  Israel  in  direct  application  to  the  race  itself. 
The  reasons  for  these  contrary  opinions  will  be  more  clear  from  the  follow- 
ing verse. 

V.  23.  For  in  his  seeing  (i.  e.  when  he  sees)  his  children,  the  work  of 
my  hands,  in  the  midst  of  him,  they  shall  sanctify  my  name,  and  sanctify  (or 
yes  they  shall  sanctify)  the  Holy  One  of  Jacob,  and  the  God  of  Israel  they 
shall  fear.  The  verse  thus  translated  according  to  its  simplest  and  most 
obvious  sense  has  much  perplexed  interpreters.  The  difficulties  chiefly 
urged  are,  first,  that  Jacob  should  be  said  to  see  his  children  in  the  midst  of 
himself  (ia^pa)  ;  secondly,  that  his  thus  seeing  them  should  be  the  occasion 
of  their  glorifying  God.  The  last  incongruity  is  only  partially  removed  by 
making  the  verb  indefinite  as  Ewald  does  (wird  man  heiligen);  for  it  may 
still  be  asked  why  Jacob  is  not  himself  represented  as  the  agent.  To  re- 
move both  difficulties,  some  explain  the  verse  to  mean,  when  he  (that  is)  his 
children  see  the  work  of  my  hands  (viz.  my  providential  judgments)  they 
shall  sanctify  etc.  It  is  evident  however  that  in  this  construction  the  men- 
tion of  the  children  is  entirely  superfluous,  and  throws  the  figures  of  the  text 
into  confusion.  Ewald  accordingly  omits  "mb"1  as  a  gloss,  which  is  merely 
giving  up  the  attempt  at  explanation  in  despair.  Gesenius,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  his  translation,  cuts  the  knot  by  omitting  the  singular  pronoun  and 
making  his  children  the  sole  subject  of  the  verb.  What  follows  is  suggested 
as  a  possible  solution  of  this  exegetical  enigma.  We  have  seen  reason, 
wholly  independent  of  this  verse,  to  believe  that  the  immediately  preceding 
context  has  respect  to  the  excision  of  the  Jews  and  the  vocation  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. Now  the  latter  are  described  in  the  New  Testament  as  Abraham's 
(and  consequently  Jacob's)  spiritual  progeny,  as  such  distinguished  from  his 


504  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXIX. 

natural  descendants.  May  not  these  adventitious  or  adopted  children  of 
the  patriarch,  constituted  such  by  the  electing  grace  of  God,  be  here  in- 
tended by  the  phrase,  the  work  of  my  hands  1  If  so,  the  whole  may  thus  be 
paraphrased  :  when  he  (the  patriarch,  supposed  to  be  again  alive  and  gaz- 
ing at  his  offspring)  shall  behold  his  children  (not  by  nature  but)  created 
such  by  me,  in  the  midst  of  him  (i.  e.  in  the  midst,  or  in  the  place,  of  his 
natural  descendants),  they  (i.  e.  he  and  his  descendants  jointly)  shall  unite 
in  glorifying  God  as  the  author  of  this  great  revolution.  This  explanation 
of  the  verse  is  the  more  natural,  because  such  would  no  doubt  be  the  actual 
feelings  of  the  patriarch  and  his  descendants,  if  he  should  really  be  raised 
from  the  dead,  and  permitted  to  behold  what  God  has  wrought,  with  respect 
both  to  his  natural  and  spiritual  offspring.  To  the  passage  thus  explained 
a  striking  parallel  is  found  in  ch.  49:  18-21,  where  the  same  situation  and 
emotions  here  ascribed  to  the  patriarch  are  predicated  of  the  church  per- 
sonified, to  whom  the  Prophet  says,  '  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about  and 
behold,  all  these  gather  themselves  together,  they  come  to  thee.  The 
children  which  thou  shalt  have  after  thou  hast  lost  the  others  shall  say  etc. 
Then  shalt  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  who  hath  begotten  me  these,  seeing  I 
have  lost  my  children,  and  am  desolate,  a  captive,  and  removing  to  and 
fro  ?  And  who  hath  brought  up  these  ?  Behold,  I  alone  was  left ;  these, 
where  were  they  ?'  For  the  use  of  the  word  sanctify  in  reference  to  God  as 
its  object,  see  the  note  on  ch.  8:  13.  The  Holy  One  of  Jacob  is  of  course 
identical  in  meaning  with  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  which  last  phrase  is  ex- 
plained in  the  note  on  ch.  1  :  4.  The  emphatic  mention  of  the  Holy  One 
of  Jacob  and  the  God  of  Israel,  as  the  object  to  be  sanctified,  implies  a  rela- 
tion still  existing  between  all  believers  and  their  spiritual  ancestry,  as  well 
as  a  relation  of  identity  between  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Church. 

V.  24.  Then  shall  the  erring  in  spirit  know  wisdom,  and  the  murmur ers 
(or  rebels)  shall  receive  instruction.  These  words  would  be  perfectly  ap- 
propriate as  a  general  description  of  the  reclaiming  and  converting  influence 
to  be  exerted  upon  men  in  general.  But  under  this  more  vague  and  com 
prehensive  sense,  the  context,  and  especially  the  verse  immediately  preced- 
ing, seems  to  show  that  there  is  one  more  specific  and  significant  included. 
If  the  foregoing  verse  predicts  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  family 
of  Israel,  and  if  this  reception,  as  we  learn  from  the  New  Testament,  was 
connected  with  the  disinheriting  of  most  of  the  natural  descendants,  who  are 
nevertheless  to  be  restored  hereafter,  then  the  promise  of  this  final  restora- 
tion is  a  stroke  still  wanting  to  complete  the  fine  prophetic  picture  now  before 
us.  That  finishing  stroke  is  given  in  this  closing  verse,  which  adds  to  the 
promise  that  the  Gentiles  shall  become  the  heirs  of  Israel,  another  that  the 
heirs  of  Israel  according  to  the  flesh  shall  themselves  be  restored  to  their 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  505 

long  lost  heritage,  not  by  excluding  their  successors  in  their  turn,  but  by 
peaceful  and  brotherly  participation  with  them.  This  application  of  the 
last  part  of  the  chapter  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  restoration  of 
the  Jews  has  been  founded,  as  the  reader  will  observe,  not  on  any  forced 
accommodation  of  particular  expressions,  but  on  various  detached  points,  all 
combining  to  confirm  this  exegetical  hypothesis,  as  the  only  one  which  fur- 
nishes a  key  to  the  consistent  exposition  of  the  chapter,  as  a  concatenated 
prophecy  without  abrupt  transitions  or  a  mixture  of  incongruous  materials. 


CHAPTER   XXX. 


This  chapter  contains  an  exposure  of  the  sin  and  folly  of  ancient  Israel 
in  seeking  foreign  aid  against  their  enemies,  to  the  neglect  of  God,  their 
rightful  sovereign  and  their  only  strong  protector.  The  costume  of  the 
prophecy  is  borrowed  from  the  circumstances  and  events  of  Isaiah's  own 
times.  Thus  Egypt  is  mentioned  in  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  as  the 
chosen  ally  of  the  people,  and  Assyria  in  the  last  part  as  the  dreaded  enemy. 
There  is  no  need  however  of  restricting  what  is  said  to  that  period  exclu- 
sively. The  presumption,  as  in  all  such  cases,  is  that  the  description  was 
designed  to  be  more  general,  although  it  may  contain  allusions  to  particular 
emergencies.  Reliance  upon  human  aid,  involving  a  distrust  of  the  divine 
promises,  was  a  crying  sin  of  the  ancient  church,  not  at  one  time  only,  but 
throughout  her  history.  To  denounce  such  sins,  and  threaten  them  with 
condign  punishment,  was  no  small  part  of  the  prophetic  office.  The  chrono- 
logical hypotheses  assumed  by  different  writers  with  respect  to  this  chapter 
are  erroneous  only  because  too  specific  and  exclusive.  Thus  Jerome  refers 
it  to  the  conduct  of  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah  ;  Kimchi  to  their 
conduct  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz  ;  Jarchi  to  the  conduct  of  the  ten  tribes  in  the 
reign  of  Hoshea.  Vitringa  takes  a  step  in  the  right  direction  by  combining 
Israel  and  Judah  as  included  in  the  censure.  Some  of  the  later  writers 
assume  the  existence  of  an  Egyptian  party  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who 
negotiated  with  that  power  against  the  will  or  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
king.  But  even  if  this  fact  can  be  inferred  from  Rabshakeh's  hypothetical 
reproach  in  ch.  36  :  6,  it  does  not  follow  that  this  was  the  sole  subject  or 
occasion  of  the  prophecy.  It  was  clearly  intended  to  reprove  the  sin  of 
seeking  foreign  aid  without  divine  permission  ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the 
terms  of  the  reproof  confining  it  to  any  single  case  of  the  offence.  The 
chapter  may  be  divided  into  three  parts.     In  the  first,  the  Prophet  shows 


506  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

the  sin  and  folly  of  relying  upon  Egypt,  no  doubt  for  protection  against 
Assyria,  as  these  were  the  two  great  powers  between  which  Israel  was  con- 
tinually oscillating,  almost  constantly  at  war  with  one  and  in  alliance  with 
the  other,  vs.  1-7.  In  the  last  part,  he  describes  the  Assyrian  power  as 
broken  by  an  immediate  divine  interposition,  precluding  the  necessity  of  any 
human  aid,  vs.  27-33.  In  the  larger  intervening  part,  he  shows  the  con- 
nexion of  this  distrust  of  God  and  reliance  on  the  creature  with  the  general 
character  and  spiritual  state  of  the  people,  as  unwilling  to  receive  instruction, 
as  dishonest  and  oppressive,  making  severe  judgments  necessary  as  a  prelude 
to  the  glorious  change  which  God  would  eventually  bring  to  pass,  vs.  8-26. 

V.  1.  Woe  to  the  disobedient  children,  saith  Jehovah,  (so  disobedient 
as)  to  form  (or  execute)  a  plan  and  not  from  me,  and  to  weave  a  web,  but 
not  (of)  my  Spirit,  for  the  sake  of  adding  sin  to  sin.  Here,  as  in  ch.  1  : 
2,  Israel's  filial  relation  to  Jehovah  is  particularly  mentioned  as  an  agrava- 
tion  of  his  ingratitude  and  disobedience.  The  infinitives  express  the  respect 
in  which,  or  the  result  with  which,  they  had  rebelled  against  Jehovah.  The 
relative  construction  of  the  English  Version  does  not  materially  change  the 
sense.  The  phrase  sis&e  ■qbab  has  been  variously  explained.  The  Peshito 
makes  it  mean  to  pour  out  libations,  probably  with  reference  to  some  ancient 
mode  of  ratifying  covenants,  and  the  Septuagint  accordingly  translates  it 
iTiotqaaze  vvv&rjxag.  Cocceius  applies  it  to  the  casting  of  molten  images  (ad 
fundendum  fusile) ,  DeDieu  to  the  moulding  of  designs  or  plots.  Kimchi 
and  Calvin  derive  the  words  from  the  root  to  cover,  and  suppose  the  idea 
here  expressed  to  be  that  of  concealment.  Ewald  follows  J.  D.  Michaelis 
in  making  the  phrase  mean  to  weave  a  web,  which  agrees  well  with  the  con- 
text, and  is  favoured  by  the  similar  use  of  the  same  verb  and  noun  in  ch. 
25 :  7.  Knobel's  objection,  that  this  figure  is  suited  only  to  a  case  of 
treachery,  has  no  force,  as  the  act  of  seeking  foreign  aid  was  treasonable 
under  the  theocracy,  and  the  design  appears  to  have  been  formed  and 
executed  secretly.  (Compare  ch.  29:  15,  where  the  reference  may  be  to 
the  same  transaction.)  Vitringa,  who  refers  the  first  part  of  the  chapter  to 
the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  supposes  the  sin  of  seeking  foreign  aid  to  be 
here  described  as  added  to  the  previous  sin  of  worshipping  the  golden  calf. 
Hitzig  supposes  the  first  sin  to  be  that  of  forsaking  Jehovah,  the  second  that 
of  seeking  human  aid.  The  simple  meaning  seems  however  to  be  that  of 
multiplying  or  accumulating  guilt.  d^"i*no  is  strongly  rendered  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint apostates,  and  by  the  Vulgate  deserters,  both  which  ideas  may  be 
considered  as  involved  in  the  translation  rebels  or  rebellious,  disobedient  or 
refractory. 

V.  2.   Those  walking  to  go  down  to  Egypt,  and  my  mouth  they  have  not 
consulted  (literally  asked),  to  take  refuge  in  the  strength  of  Pharaoh,  and  to 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  507 

trust  in  the  shadow  of  Egypt.  Motion  towards  Egypt  is  commonly  spoken 
of  in  scripture  as  downward,  n^abn  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  setting 
out  or  setting  forward ;  but  DeWette  and  Ewald  omit  it  altogether,  or  con- 
sider it  as  joined  with  the  other  verb  to  express  the  simple  idea  of  descent. 
Hendewerk  takes  mouth  as  a  specific  designation  of  the  Prophet,  which  is 
wholly  unnecessary.  To  ask  the  mouth,  or  at  the  mouth,  of  the  Lord  is  a 
phrase  used  elsewhere  in  the  sense  of  seeking  a  divine  decision  or  response. 

V.  3.  And  the  strength  of  Egypt  shall  be  to  you  for  shame  and  the 
trust  in  the  shadow  of  Egypt  for  confusion.  \  ttf\  may  here  be  taken  in 
its  frequent  sense  of  becoming  or  being  converted  into.  The  common  ver- 
sion of  the  first  1  by  therefore  changes  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original 
without  necessity. 

V.  4.  For  his  chiefs  are  in  Zoan,  and  his  ambassadors  arrive  at  Hanes. 
For  the  site  and  political  importance  of  Zoan  or  Tanis,  see  the  commentary 
on  ch.  19 :  11.  For  wv  b:n,  the  Seventy  seem  to  have  read  W*«  osn,  they 
shall  labour  in  vain.  This  reading  is  also  found  in  a  few  manuscripts  and 
approved  by  Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis.  The  latter  thinks  it  possible  how- 
ever that  D3n  may  denote  the  Pyramids.  The  Targum  changes  Hanes  into 
Tahpanhes,  and  Grotius  regards  the  former  as  a  mere  contraction  of  the 
latter,  which  is  also  the  conjecture  of  Champollion.  Vitringa  identifies  the 
Din  of  Isaiah  with  the  "Avvaig  of  Herodotus.  This  combination  is  approved 
by  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers,  who  moreover  identify  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  forms  with  the  Egyptian  Hues  and  the  Arabic  Ehnes.  The  city  so 
called  was  in  Middle  Egypt,  south  of  Memphis.  The  older  writers  almost 
unanimously  understand  this  verse  as  relating  to  the  envoys  of  Israel  and 
Judah.  Clericus  indeed  refers  the  suffixes  to  Egypt  or  to  Pharaoh,  but 
without  a  change  of  meaning,  as  he  supposes  the  Egyptian  envoys  to  be 
such  as  were  sent  to  meet  the  others,  or  to  convey  the  answer  to  their 
applications.  But  some  of  the  late  interpreters  adopt  the  same  construction 
with  a  total  change  of  meaning.  Hitzig  regards  the  verse  as  a  contemptu- 
ous description  of  the  narrow  boundaries  and  insignificance  of  Egypt.  His 
(Pharaoh's)  princes  are  in  Zoan  (the  capital),  and  his  heralds  (the  bearers 
ef  his  royal  mandates)  only  reach  to  Hanes  (a  town  of  middle  Egypt). 
The  unnatural  and  arbitrary  character  of  this  interpretation  will  appear  from 
the  curious  fact  that  Ewald,  who  adopts  the  same  construction  of  the  pro- 
nouns, makes  the  whole  verse  a  concession  of  the  magnitude  and  strength 
of  the  Egyptian  monarchy.  Although  his  princes  are  at  Zoan  (in  Lower 
Egypt)  and  his  heralds  reach  to  Hanes  (much  further  south).  Knobel  ob- 
jects to  these  constructions,  that  the  phrase,  his  princes  are  at  Zoan,  is 
unmeaning  and  superfluous.     He  therefore  resuscitates  the  Septuagint  read- 


508  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

ing  W*  Din,  and  makes  the  whole  mean,  that  the  chiefs  of  Pharaoh  are  still 
at  Zoan  (i.  e.  remain  inactive  there),  and  that  his  messengers  or  commissaries 
labour  in  vain  to  raise  the  necessary  forces.  From  these  ingenious  extra- 
vagances it  is  satisfactory  to  fall  back  on  the  old  interpretation,  which  is  also 
that  of  Gesenius,  Umbreit,  and  Hendewerk,  with  this  modification  in  the 
case  of  the  latter,  that  he  supposes  Zoan  and  Hanes  to  be  mentioned  as  the 
royal  seats  of  Sevechus  and  Tirhakah,  to  both  of  whom  the  application 
may  have  been  addressed. 

V.  5.  All  are  ashamed  of  a  people  who  cannot  profit  them,  (a  people) 
not  for  help  and  not  for  profit,  but  for  shame,  and  also  for  disgrace, 
Lowth  inserts  est  after  13,  on  the  authority  of  four  manuscripts.  But  the 
*B  is  itself  here  equivalent  to  an  adversative  particle  in  English,  although  it 
really  retains  its  usual  meaning,  for,  because.  The  Hebrew  construction  is, 
they  are  not  a  profit  or  a  help,  for  (on  the  contrary)  they  are  a  disgrace  and 
a  reproach.  Gesenius  regards  ttaft^h  as  an  incorrect  orthography  for  tirsin ; 
but  Maurer  and  Knobel  read  it  ^&Cii,  and  assume  a  root  fcto  synonymous 
with  tiia.  The  ^>?  in  the  first  clause  has  its  very  frequent  meaning  of  con- 
cerning, on  account  of 

V.  6.   The  burden  of  the  beasts  of  the  south,  in  a  land  of  suffering  and 
distress,  whence  (are)  the  adder  and  the  fiery  flying  serpent ;  they  are  car- 
rying (or  about  to  carry)  on  the  shoulder  of  young  asses  their  wealth,  and 
on  the  hump  of  camels  their  treasures,  to  a  people  (or  for  the  sake  of  a 
people)  who  cannot  profit.     The  Prophet  sees  the  ambassadors  of  Israel 
carrying   costly   presents    through    the  waste  howling  wilderness,  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  the  Egyptian  alliance.     Gill  applies  the  description  to 
the  emigration  of  the  Jews  into  Egypt  in  the  days  of  Jeremiah.     This  may 
be  alluded  to,  but  cannot  be  the  exclusive  subject  of  the  passage.     The 
Sepiuagint  translates  styx  by  oQaaig,  and  converts  the  first  clause  into  a  title 
or  inscription.     Schmidius  and  J.  H.  Michaelis  regard  this  as  the  beginning 
of  a  special  prophecy,  or  subdivision  of  the  greater  prophecy,  against  the 
southern  Jews  who  were  nearest  to  Egypt.    Henderson  also  thinks  it  incon- 
trovertible, that  this  is  the  title  or  inscription  of  the  record  which  the  Pro- 
phet is  afterwards  commanded  to  make.    The  latest  German  writers,  as  might 
have  been  expected,  reject  the  clause  as  spurious,  Hendewerk  and  Ewald 
expunging  it  wholly  from  the  text,  while  the  others  include  it  in  brackets  as 
of  doubtful  authenticity.    These  critical  conclusions  all  involve  the  supposi- 
tion, that  some  ancient  copyist  or  reader  of  the  Prophet,  imagining  a  new 
subdivision  to  begin  here,  introduced  this  title,  as  the  same  or  another  hand 
had  done  in  ch.  13:  1.   15:  1.  17:  1.   19:  1.  21  :  1,  11,  13.  22:  1.  23:  I. 
The  number  of  these  alleged  interpolations,  far  from  adding  to  the  proba- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  509 


bility  of  the  assumption,  makes  it  more  improbable  in  every  instance  where 
it  is  resorted  to.  In  this  case,  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a 
change  of  subject  or  a  new  division,  if  the  title  be  omitted.  How  then  can 
the  interpolation  be  accounted  for  ?  If  it  be  said,  that  we  are  not  bound  to 
account  for  the  absurdity  of  ancient  interpolators,  the  answer  is  that  we  are 
just  as  little  bound  to  believe  in  their  existence.  The  truth  appears  to  be, 
that  the  interpretation  of  this  clause  as  an  inscription  is  entirely  imaginary. 
Even  in  the  other  cases  cited,  we  have  seen  that  the  assumption  of  a  formal 
title  may  be  pushed  too  far.  But  here  it  is  wholly  out  of  place.  It  is  surely 
an  unreasonable  supposition,  that  the  Prophet  could  not  put  the  word  gigs 
at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence  without  converting  it  into  a  title.  The  most 
natural  construction  of  the  first  clause  is  to  take  it  as  an  exclamation  (oh  the 
burden  of  the  beasts !  what  a  burden  to  the  beasts  !) — or  as  an  absolute  nomi- 
native (as  to  the  burden  of  the  beasts).  The  beasts  meant  are  not  the  lions 
and  the  vipers  of  the  next  clause  (Hitzig),  but  the  asses  and  the  camels  of 
the  one  following,  called  beasts  of  the  south  because  travelling  in  that  direc- 
tion. The  land  meant  is  not  Egypt  (Vitringa),  though  described  by  Ara- 
mianus  Marcellinus  as  peculiarly  abounding  in  venomous  reptiles  (serpentes 
alit  innumeras,  ultra  omnem  perniciem  saevientes,  basiliscos  et  amphisbae- 
nas  et  scytalas  et  acontias  et  dipsadas  et  viperas  aliasque  complures),  nor 
the  land  of  Israel  as  the  nurse  of  lion-like  men  or  heroes  (J.  D.  Michaelis), 
but  the  interjacent  desert  described  by  Moses  in  similar  terms  (Deut.  1 :  19. 
8:  15).  The  preposition  a,  meaning  strictly  in,  might  in  this  connexion 
denote  either  through  or  into,  but  the  former  seems  to  be  required  by  the 
context.  It  follows  of  course  that  hpi*1  m*  y\»  cannot  mean  a  land  of 
oppression,  in  allusion  either  to  the  bondage  of  the  Hebrews  or  to  that  of 
the  natives  (Vitringa),  nor  a  land  compressed  and  narrow  in  shape  (Cleri- 
cus),  but  must  denote  a  land  of  suffering,  danger,  and  privation,  such  as  the 
great  Arabian  desert  is  to  travellers.  Those  who  make  JfHI  to  mean  Egypt 
explain  fcrra  as  referring  rather  to  the  people  than  the  country ;  but  if  the 
land  referred  to  is  the  desert,  it  must  be  explained,  with  the  latest  German 
writers,  as  either  a  poetical  license  or  a  grammatical  anomaly.  The  general 
meaning  of  the  phrase,  as  all  agree,  is  whence.  It  is  also  agreed  that  two 
designations  of  the  lion  are  here  used ;  but  how  they  mutually  differ  is  dis- 
puted. Calvin  has  leo  et  leo  major ;  Cocceius,  leo  animosus  et  annosus. 
Luther  makes  the  distinction  one  of  sex  (lions  and  lionesses),  which  is  now 
regarded  as  the  true  distinction,  though  the  first  of  the  two  Hebrew  words, 
since  Bochart,  has  been  commonly  explained  to  mean  the  lioness.  So 
Clericus,  leaena  et  leo  violentus,  and  all  the  recent  writers  except  Hitzig, 
who  makes  both  the  words  generic  (Leu  und  Lowe).  fiysa  may  be  trans- 
lated adder,  viper,  asp,  or  by  any  other  term  denoting  a  venomous  and 
deadly  serpent.    For  the  meaning  of  qfiwa  pp«?,  see  the  note  on  ch.  14 :  29. 


510  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

The  lions  and  vipers  of  this  verse  are  not  symbolical  descriptions  of  the 
Egyptians  (Junius),  but  a  poetical  description  of  the  desert.  Clericus 
makes  even  rvrara  (Behemoth)  an  emblem  of  Egypt,  and  translates  the 
clause  (as  an  inscription),  oratio  pronunciata  de  meridiano  hippopotamo  ! 
d^v?  or  d">*i^5,  which  Lowth  translates  too  vaguely  young  cattle,  denotes 
more  specifically  young  asses,  or  it  may  be  used  as  a  poetical  designation  of 
asses  in  general.  That  WBQfl  signifies  the  hump  or  bunch  of  the  camel,  as 
explained  in  the  Vulgate  (super  gibbum  cameli),  the  Peshito,  and  the  Tar- 
gum,  is  clear  from  the  context,  but  not  from  etymology,  as  to  which  inter- 
preters are  much  divided.  The  old  Jews  traced  the  word  to  WSft  honey 
(becanse  sometimes  applied  for  medicinal  purposes),  while  Henderson  ex- 
plains it  by  an  Arabic  analogy  as  meaning  the  natural  furniture  of  the 
animal.  The  b§  before  as  does  not  seem  to  be  a  mere  equivalent  to  ^x, 
but  rather,  as  in  v.  5,  to  mean  on  account  of,  for  the  sake  of. 

V.  7.  And  Egypt  (or  the  Egyptians)  in  vain  and  to  no  purpose  shall 
they  help.     Therefore  I  cry  concerning  this,  their  strength  is  to  sit  still. 
This,  which  is  the  common  English  Version  of  the  last  clause,  is  substantially 
the  same  with  Calvin's.     Later  writers  have  rejected  it,  however,  on  the 
ground,  that  nrn,  according  to  etymology  and  usage,  does  not  mean  strength 
but  indolence.     On  this  supposition,  the  Vulgate  version  would  be  more  cor- 
rect (superbiatantum  est,  quiesce),  raw  being  then  explained  as  the  impera- 
tive of  raui  to  cease,  to  rest.     This  construction  is  exactly   in  accordance 
with   the  masoretic  accents,  which  connect  dm  with  'Sen  and  disjoin  it  from 
raw.     But  the  last  word,  as  now  pointed,  must  be  either  a  noun  or  an  in- 
finitive.    Since  am  occurs  elsewhere  as  a  name  of  Egypt,  most  of  the  mod- 
ern writers  take  ina^p  in  the  sense  of  naming,  which  is  fully  justified  by  usage, 
and  understand  the  clause  as  contrasting  the  pretensions  of  Egypt  with  its 
actual  performances,  the   two  antagonist  ideas  being  those  of  arrogance  or 
insolence   and  quiescence  or  inaction.     Thus  Gesenius  translates  it,  Gross- 
maul  das  still  sitzt,  and  Barnes,  the  blusterer  that  sittcth  still.     Besides  the 
obscurity  of  the  descriptive  epithets,  the  construction  is  perplexed  by  the 
use,  first  of  the   feminine  singular  (nat),  and  then  of  the  masculine  plural 
(on), both  in  reference  to  one  subject.     The  common  solution  is  that  the 
former  has  respect  to  the  country,  and  the  latter  to  the  people.     The  general 
meaning  of  the  clause  may  be  considered  as  determined  by  the  one  before 
it.     b=n  and  p^  are  nouns  used  adverbially.     Ewald  introduces  in  the  last 
clause  a  paronomasia  which  is  not  in  the  original  (Trotzige  das  isi  Frostige), 

V.  8.  And  now  go,  write  it  with  them  on  a  tablet  and  inscribe  it  in  a 
book,  and  let  it  be  for  a  future  day,  for  ever,  to  eternity.  This,  like  the 
similar  precaution  in  ch.  8  :  1 ,  was  intended  to  verify  the  fact  of  the  predic- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  511 


tion  after  the  event.  btnK  seems  to  include  the  ideas  of  before  them  and 
among  them.  Knobel  infers  rom  this  command,  that  the  Prophet's  house 
must  have  been  upon  the  street  or  square,  in  which  the  prediction  was  orally- 
delivered.  Most  interpreters  suppose  two  distinct  inscriptions  to  be  here 
required,  one  on  a  solid  tablet  for  public  exhibition,  and  the  other  on  parch- 
ment or  the  like  for  preservation.  But  Gesenius  more  naturally  understands 
the  words  fffc  and  ^sc  as  equivalents,  which  is  the  less  improbable,  because 
if  a  distinction  were  intended,  ?pn  would  no  doubt  have  been  connected,  not 
with  is&  but  with  nib.  Some  of  the  ancient  versions  exchange  i?  for  ns>  (a 
testimony  for  ever),  which  is  adopted  by  several  interpreters  on  the  authority 
of  Deut.  31  :  19,  21,  26,  where  the  same  combination  occurs.  Ewald  adds 
that  the  idea  of  testimony  is  essential,  and  Knobel  that  the  concurrence  of 
*f$-v  would  be  cacophonous. 

V.  9.  For  a  people  of  rebellion  (a  rebellious  people)  is  it,  lying  (or  de- 
nying) children,  children  (who)  are  not  willing  to  learn  the  law  of  Jehovah, 
By  denying  children  Kimchi  understands  such  as  deny  their  father,  Gill 
such  as  falsely  pretend  to  be  his  children.  Hitzig  gives  the  phrase  a  more 
specific  meaning,  as  denoting  that  they  would  deny  the  fact  of  the  prediction 
without  some  such  attestation  as  the  one  required  in  the  preceding  verse. 
The  English  Version  makes  this  verse  state  the  substance  of  the  inscription, 
that  this  is  a  rebellious  people  etc. 

V.  10.  Who  say  to  the  seers,  Ye  shall  not  see,  and  to  the  viewers,  ye  shall 
not  view  for  us  right  things ;  speak  unto  us  smooth  things,  view  deceits. 
There  is  great  difficulty  in  translating  this  verse  literally,  as  the  two  Hebrew 
verbs,  meaning  to  see,  have  no  equivalents  in  English,  which  of  themselves 
suggest  the  idea  of  prophetic  revelation.  The  common  version  (see  not, 
prophesy  not),  although  it  conveys  the  true  sense  substantially,  leaves  out 
of  view  the  near  relation  of  the  two  verbs  to  each  othe/  in  the  original.  In 
the  translation  above  given,  view  is  introduced  merely  as  a  synonyme  of  see, 
both  being  here  used  to  express  supernatural  or  prophetic  vision.  With  this 
use  of  the  verbal  noun  (seer)  we  are  all  familiar  through  the  English  Bible. 
Clericus  translates  both  verbs  in  the  present  (non  videtis),  which  would 
make  the  verse  a  simple  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  or  of  the 
truth  of  their  communications.  Most  interpreters  prefer  the  imperative  form, 
which  is  certainly  implied ;  but  the  safest  because  the  most  exact  construc- 
tion is  Luther's,  which  adheres  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  future  (ye  shall  not 
see).  This  is  of  course  not  given  as  the  actual  language  of  the  people,  but 
as  the  tendency  and  spirit  of  their  acts.  It  is  an  ingenious  but  extravagant 
idea  of  Cocceius,  that  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  condemns  the  prohibition 
of  the  Scriptures  by  antichristian  teachers,  who  say  to  those  seeing  ye  shall 


512  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

not  see  etc.  Even  if  the  first  clause  could  be  naturally  thus  explained, 
the  same  sense  could  not  possibly  be  put  upon  the  others.  Smooth  things 
or  words  is  a  common  figurative  term  for  flatteries.  Luther's  expressive 
version  is,  preach  soft  to  us, 

V.  1 1.  Depart  from  the  way,  swerve  from  the  path,  cause  to  cease  from 
before  us  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  request  is  not  (as  Gill  suggests) 
that  they  would  get  out  of  the  people's  way,  so  as  no  longer  to  prevent  their 
going  on  in  sin,  but  that  they  would  get  out  of  their  own  way,  i.  e.  wander 
from  it  or  forsake  it.  This  way  is  explained  by  Gesenius  to  be  the  way  of 
piety  and  virtue,  but  by  Hitzig  more  correctly  as  the  way  which  they  had 
hitherto  pursued  in  the  discharge  of  their  prophetic  functions.  Cause  to 
cease  from  before  us,  i.  e.  remove  from  our  sight.  It  was  a  common  opinion 
with  the  older  writers,  that  this  clause  alludes  to  Isaiah's  frequent  repetition 
of  the  name  Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  contains  a  request  that  they  might 
hear  it  no  more.  But  the  modern  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  that  the 
allusion  is  not  to  the  name  but  the  person.  Cocceius  understands  the  clause 
as  relating  to  the  antichristian  exclusion  of  Christ  from  the  church  as  its 
sanctifier.     The  form  of  the  preposition  (?|%)  is  peculiar  to  this  place. 

V.  12.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  Because  of  your 
rejecting  (or  despising)  this  word,  and  (because)  ye  have  trusted  in  oppres- 
sion and  perverseness,  and  have  relied  thereon.  On  the  hypothesis  already 
stated,  that  the  people  had  expressed  a  particular  dislike  to  the  title  Holy 
One  of  Israel,  Piscator  supposes  that  the  Prophet  here  intentionally  uses  it, 
as  if  in  defiance  of  their  impious  unbelief.  Gill  even  thinks  that  this  word 
may  mean  this  name.  But  all  this  seems  to  limit  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  too  much.  The  word  here  mentioned  is  no  doubt  the  law  of  v.  9, 
both  being  common  epithets  of  revelation  generally,  and  of  particular  divine 
communications.  (See  the  note  on  ch.  2  :  3.)  J.  D.  Michaelis  ingeniously 
converts  the  last  clause  into  a  description  of  Egypt,  as  itself  oppressed  and 
therefore  unfit  to  be  the  protector  of  Israel.  But  in  order  to  extract  this 
meaning  from  the  words,  he  is  forced  into  an  arbitrary  change  of  the  point- 
ing. Houbigant  and  Lowth  instead  of  pV3  read  upr,  thus  making  it  synony- 
mous with  nba.  The  latter  word  seems  to  denote  perverseness  or  moral 
obliquity  in  general.  It  is  rendered  in  a  strong  idiomatic  form  by  Hitzig 
(Verschmitztheit)  and  Ewald  (Querwege). 

V.  13.  Therefore  shall  this  iniquity  be  to  you  like  a  breach  falling  (or 
ready  to  fall)  swelling  out  in  a  high  wall,  whose  breaking  may  come  suddenly, 
at  (any)  instant.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  by  another  arbitrary  change  of  text, 
reads  this  help  instead  of  this  iniquity.     The  image  is  that  of  a  wall  which 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXX.  513 

is  rent  or  cracked  and,  as  Gill  says,  bellies  out  and  bulges.  The  verse  is  ex- 
plained with  great  unanimity  by  the  interpreters  until  we  come  to  Hitzig, 
who  puts  an  entirely  new  face  upon  the  simile.  He  objects  with  some  truth 
to  the  old  interpretation  that  it  assumes  without  authority  a  future  meaning 
of  the  participle  bsb,  and  that  it  makes  the  breach  or  chasm  swell  and  fall 
instead  of  the  wall  itself.  He  then  infers,  from  the  use  of  yya  in  2  Sam. 
5:  20  and  of  nssn  in  Isaiah  64  :  1,  that  the  former  here  denotes  a  torrent 
(Wzldstrom),  falling  upon  (i.  e.  attacking,  as  in  Josh.  11  :  7),  and  swelling 
against  a  high  wall.  The  weakest  point  in  this  ingenious  combination  is 
the  necessity  of  construing  bsb  with  a,  from  which  it  is  separated  by  was. 
To  remove  this  difficulty,  Hendewerk,  adopting  the  same  general  construc- 
tion, takes  the  whole  phrase  bss  yt  in  the  sense  of  waterfall.  The  later 
German  writers,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  have  returned  to  the  old  in- 
terpretation. Ewald,  however,  to  remove  the  first  of  Hitzig's  objections, 
applies  bsb  not  to  the  falling  of  the  wall,  but  to  the  sinking  or  extension 
downwards  of  the  breach  itself  (ein  sinkender  Miss)  ;  while  Knobel  gains 
the  same  end  by  explaining  ynz  to  be  not  the  aperture  or  chasm  but  the 
portion  of  the  wall  affected  by  it.  This  last  explanation  had  been  previously 
and  independently  proposed  by  Henderson,  who  says  that  the  word  here 
means  properly  the  piece  forming  one  side  of  the  breach  or  rent.  But  this 
is  really  a  mere  concession  that  the  strict  and  usual  sense  is  inappropriate. 
With  respect  to  the  main  point,  that  the  figures  were  intended  to  express  the 
idea  of  sudden  destruction,  there  is  and  can  be  no  diversity  of  judgment. 
In  favour  of  the  old  interpretation,  as  compared  with  Hitzig's,  it  may  be 
suggested,  that  the  former  conveys  the  idea  of  a  gradual  yet  sudden  catas- 
trophe, which  is  admirably  suited  to  the  context.  It  is  also  true,  as  Umbreit 
well  observes,  that  the  idea  of  a  downfall  springing  from  internal  causes  is 
more  appropriate  in  this  connexion  than  that  of  mere  external  violence  how- 
ever overwhelming. 

V.  14.  And  it  (the  wall)  is  broken  like  the  breaking  of  a  potter's  ves- 
sel (any  utensil  of  earthen  ware),  broken  unsparingly  (or  without  mercy),  so 
that  there  is  not  found  in  its  fracture  (or  among  its  fragments)  a  sherd  to 
take  up  fire  from  a  hearth,  and  to  skim  (or  dip  up)  water  from  a  pool. 
The  first  words  strictly  mean,  he  breaks  it,  not  the  enemy,  as  Knobel  sup- 
poses, which  would  imply  an  allusion  to  the  breach  made  in  a  siege,  but  he 
indefinitely,  i.  e.  some  one  (Cocceius  :  aliquis  franget),  which  may  be 
resolved  into  a  passive  form  as  in  the  Vulgate  (comminuetur).  It  is  wholly 
gratuitous  to  read  n^n^n.  The  phrase  ^Krt  &>  niris  exhibits  a  construction 
wholly  foreign  from  our  idiom  and  therefore  not  susceptible  of  literal  transla- 
tion. The  nearest  approach  to  it  is,  breaking  he  spareth  not  (or  will  not 
spare).     Sherd  is  an  old  English  word,  now  seldom  used,  meaning  a  broken 

33 


514  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

piece  of  pottery  or  earthenware,  and  found  more  frequently  in  the  compound 
form  of  potsherd.  A  potter's  vessel,  literally,  vessel  of  the  potters,  nnn, 
except  in  a  single  instance,  is  always  applied  to  the  taking  up  of  fire,  tjten 
is  strictly  to  remove  the  surface  of  a  liquid,  but  may  here  have  greater  latitude 
of  meaning.  For  sqa  the  English  Version  has  pit,  Lowth  cistern,  and  most 
other  writers  well ;  but  in  Ezek.  47  :  1 1  it  denotes  a  marsh  or  pool.  Ewald 
supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  the  breaking  of  a  poor  man's  earthen 
pitcher,  an  idea  which  had  been  suggested  long  before  by  Gill :  as  poor 
people  are  wont  to  do,  to  take  fire  from  the  hearth  and  water  out  of  a  well  in 
a  piece  of  broken  pitcher. 

V.  15.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  in 
returning  (or  conversion)  and  rest  shall  ye  be  saved,  in  remaining  quiet  and 
in  confidence  shall  be  your  strength  ;  and  ye  would  not  (or  were  not  willing). 
This  overwhelming  judgment  would  be  strictly  just  because  they  had  been 
fully  admonished  of  the  way  of  safety.  Here  again  Gill  supposes  a  peculiar 
significance  in  the  repetition  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  rabbinical 
explanation  of  hSWi  as  a  derivative  from  -tt)^  is  gratuitous  and  certainly  not 
justified  by  Num.  10:36.  Grotius  understands  by  returning  retrocession 
from  their  unlawful  measures  and  negotiations.  The  Targum  gives  it  the 
more  general  sense  of  returning  to  the  law,  which  agrees  in  substance  with 
the  common  explanation  of  the  term  as  meaning  a  return  to  God  by  repent- 
ance and  conversion.  (For  the  spiritual  usage  of  the  verb,  see  the  note  on 
ch.  1  :  27.)  This  sense  Gesenius  mentions  as  admissible  although  he  pre- 
fers to  assume  a  hendiadys,  by  returning  to  repose,  which  is  needless  and 
unnatural.  Hitzig's  idea  that  the  word  denotes  returning  to  one's  self  may 
be  considered  as  included  in  the  other. 

V.  16.  And  ye  said,  No,  for  we  will  flee  upon  horses ;  therefore  shall 
ye  flee  ;  and  upon  the  swift  will  we  ride  :  therefore  shall  your  pursuers  be 
swift.  Calvin  points  out  a  double  sense  of  0*13  in  this  verse,  and  the  modern 
interpreters  express  it  in  their  versions,  the  most  successful  being  that  of 
Ewald,  who  employs  the  kindred  forms  fliegen  and  fliehen.  This  can  be 
perfectly  copied  in  English  by  the  use  of  fly  and  flee ;  but  it  maybe  doubt- 
ed whether  this  is  not  a  mere  refinement,  as  the  Hebrew  verb  in  every  other 
case  means  to  flee,  and  the  hope  here  ascribed  to  the  people  is  not  simply 
that  of  going  swiftly,  but  of  escaping  from  the  dangers  threatened.  In  bg 
and  \fofy  the  primary  sense  of  lightness  is  very  often  merged  in  that  of  rapid 
motion.  Knobel  discovers  an  additional  paronomasia  in  d^cid,  which  he 
makes  perceptible  in  German  by  employing  the  three  words,  fliegen,  fliehen, 
fluchtigen.  Many  of  the  older  writers  use  a  comparative  expression  in  the 
last  clause  after  the  example  of  the  Vulgate  (velociores).  Grotius  gives 
•pDWFi  the  specific  sense  of  exsulabitis. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  515 


V.  17.  One  thousand  from  before  the  rebuke  (or  menace)  of  one,  from 
before  the  rebuke  of  five  shall  ye  flee,  until  ye  are  left  like  a  mast  (or  pole) 
on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  and  like  the  signal  on  the  hill.  From  the  use  of 
the  definite  article  in  the  last  clause,  Junius  and  Tremellius  needlessly  in- 
fer that  the  meaning  is  this  mountain,  this  hill,  meaning  Zion.  The 
pleonastic  form  one  thousand  is  not  urged  by  any  of  the  German  writers  as 
a  proof  of  later  date.  To  supply  a  particle  of  comparison  (as  one)  is  of 
course  entirely  unnecessary.  To  complete  the  parallelism,  and  to  conform 
the  expression  to  Lev.  26:  8,  Deut.  32 :  31,  Lowth  supposes  na^l  (a 
myriad)  to  have  dropped  out  of  the  text,  and  finds  a  trace  of  this  original 
reading  in   the  Septuagint  version  /.     Instead  of  a   definite  expres- 

sion, Clericus  and  others  supply  omnes.  The  former  emendation,  al- 
though not  adopted,  is  favoured  by  Gesenius ;  but  the  later  writers  reject 
both,  not  only  as  unnecessary,  but  because,  as  Hitzig  well  observes,  such  a 
change  would  disturb  the  connexion  with  what  follows,  the  sense  being 
plainly  this,  that  they  should  flee  until  they  tf  ere  left  etc.  V^n  is  taken  as 
the  name  of  a  tree  by  Augusti  (Tannenbaum)  and  Rosenmuller  (pinus),by 
Gesenius  and  Ewald  as  a  signal  or  a  signal-pole.  In  the  only  two  cases 
where  it  occurs  elsewhere,  it  has  the  specific  meaning  of  a  mast.  The 
allusion  may  be  simply  to  the  similar  appearance  of  a  lofty  and  solitary  tree, 
or  the  common  idea  may  be  that  of  a  flagstaff,  which  might  be  found  in  either 
situation.  The  word  beacon,  here  employed  by  Gataker  and  Barnes,  is 
consistent  neither  with  the  Hebrew  nor  the  English  usage.  The  idea  of  the 
last  clause,  as  expressed  by  Hitzig,  is  that  no  two  of  them  should  remain 
together.  (Compare  1  Sam.  11:  11.) 

V.  18.  And  therefore  will  Jehovah  ivait  to  have  mercy  upon  you,  and 
therefore  will  he  rise  up  (or  be  exalted)  to  pity  you,  for  a  God  of  judgmem 
is  Jehovah ;  blessed  are  all  that  wait  for  him.  The  apparent  incongruity 
of  this  promise  with  the  threatening  which  immediately  precedes,  has  led  to 
various  constructions  of  the  first  clause.  The  most  violent  and  least  satis- 
factory is  that  which  takes  1$*  in  the  rare  and  doubtful  sense  of  but  or 
nevertheless.  This  is  adopted  among  recent  writers  by  Gesenius,  Barnes, 
Henderson.  Another  solution,  given  by  Vitringa,  leaves  )sh  to  be  under- 
stood as  usual,  but  converts  the  seeming  promise  into  a  threatening,  by 
explaining  nsn-i  will  delay  (to  be  gracious),  and  dH?  will  remain  afar  off 
(Jarchi:  pnp').  But  this  is  certainly  not  the  obvious  and  natural  meaning 
of  the  Prophet's  words.  nan  elsewhere  means  to  wait  with  earnest  expecta- 
tion and  desire,  and  the  Kal  is  so  used  in  the  last  clause  of  this  very  verse. 
This  objection  also  lies  against  Maurer's  explanation  of  the  clause  as  refer- 
ing  to  delay  of  punishment.  Hitzig  supposes  the  connexion  to  be  this  : 
therefore  (because  the  issue  of  your  present  course  must  be  so  fatal)  he  will 


516  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

wait  or  allow  you  time  for  repentance.  Knobel  applies  the  whole  to  God's 
intended  dealings  with  them  after  the  threatened  judgments  should  have 
been  endured.  On  the  whole,  the  simplest  and  most  probable  conclusion 
seems  to  be  that  }sb  has  its  usual  meaning,  but  refers,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  to  a  remoter  antecedent  than  the  words  immediately  before  it.  As  if 
the  Prophet  paused  at  this  point  and  reviewing  his  denunciations  said, 
Since  this  is  so,  since  you  must  perish  if  now  dealt  with  strictly,  God  will 
allow  you  space  for  repentance,  he  will  wait  to  be  gracious,  he  will  exalt 
himself  by  showing  mercy.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  with  much  the  same  effect, 
refers  "jai  to  the  condition  mentioned  in  v.  15.  Therefore  (if  you  will  be 
quiet  and  believe)  Jehovah  will  wait  etc.  Another  difficulty  of  the  same 
kind  has  arisen  from  the  next  clause,  where  the  justice  of  God  seems  to  be 
given  as  a  reason  for  showing  mercy.  Gill  removes  the  difficulty  by  trans- 
lating *?  although ;  Henderson  by  taking  ofittja  in  the  sense  of  rectitude, 
including  as  a  prominent  idea  faithfulness  or  truth  in  the  fulfilment  of  his 
promises.  Another  expedient  suggested  by  Gill  is  to  give  asiBa  the  sense 
of  discretion.  That  the  clause  does  not  relate  to  righteousness  or  justice  in 
the  strict  sense,  appears  plain  from  the  added  benediction  upon  those  who 
trust  Jehovah.  One  point  is  universally  admitted,  namely,  that  somewhere 
in  this  verse  is  the  transition  from  the  tone  of  threatening  to  that  of  promise. 
The  question  where  it  shall  be  fixed,  though  interesting,  does  not  affect  the 
general  connexion  or  the  import  of  the  passage  as  a  whole.  Ewald 
strangely  adopts,  as  absolutely  necessary,  Houbigant's  emendation  of  the 
text,  by  reading  oi-n  for  oi*r,  and  explains  the  former  to  mean,  does  not 
suffer  himself  to  be  moved  (riihrt  sich  nicht),  an  explanation  scarcely  less 
arbitrary  than  the  criticism  on  which  it  is  founded. 

V.  19.  For  the  people  in  Zion  shall  dwell  in  Jerusalem;  thou  shalt 
weep  no  more ;  he  will  be  very  gracious  unto  thee  at  the  voice  of  thy  cry  ; 
as  he  hears  it  he  will  answer  thee.  The  position  of  the  first  verb  in  this 
English  sentence  leaves  it  doubtful  wbether  it  is  to  be  construed  with  what 
follows  or  what  goes  before.  Precisely  the  same  ambiguity  exists  in  the 
original,  which  may  either  mean  tnat  the  people  who  are  now  in  Zion  shall 
dwell  in  Jerusalem,  or  that  the  people  shall  dwell  in  Zion,  in  Jerusalem. 
This  last  is  the  most  natural  construction,  and  the  one  indicated  by  the 
accents.  It  is  adopted  in  the  English  version,  but  with  a  needless  variation 
of  the  particle,  in  Zion  at  Jerusalem.  According  to  Henderson,  the  a  ex- 
presses more  strongly  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  Zion  as  their  native  home. 
But  this  assertion  is  hardly  borne  out  by  the  places  which  he  cites  (ch.  21  : 
13.  1  Kings  16:  24.  2  Kings  5:  23).  In  the  translation  above  given  the 
Hebrew  order  is  restored.  According  to  these  constructions,  dwell  must 
be  taken  in  the  strong  sense  of  remaining  or  continuing  to  dwell  (Hende- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  517 

werk),  in  allusion  to  the  deportation  of  the  rest  of  Judah  (Grotius),  or  of 
the  ten  tribes  (Clericus).  But  a  very  different  construction  of  the  first 
clause  is  proposed  by  Doderlein,  and  approved  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald. 
These  interpreters  regard  the  whole  clause  as  a  vocative,  or  in  other  words 
as  a  description  of  the  object  of  address.  For  oh  people  in  Zion,  dwelling 
in  Jerusalem,  thou  shalt  weep  no  more.  To  obtain  this  sense,  we  must 
either  read  rj^  as  a  participle,  or  supply  the  relative  before  it,  and  suppose 
a  sudden  change  of  person,  as  in  ch.  28:  16,  and  29  :  14.  This  necessity, 
together  with  the  collocation  of  the  *a,  renders  the  vocative  construction  less 
natural  and  probable  than  that  which  makes  the  first  clause  a  distinct  pro- 
position or  promise.  Besides,  it  is  not  easy  to  account  for  so  extended  a 
description  of  the  people,  as  a  mere  introduction  to  the  wrords  that  follow. 
These  words  are  made  emphatic  by  the  combination  of  the  infinitive  and 
finite  verb.  DeWette,  according  to  his  wont,  regards  it  as  an  idiomatic 
pleonasm.  Grotius  translates  the  first  phrase,  non  diu  flebis  ;•  the  English 
Version,  thou  shalt  weep  no  more.  (For  the  usage  of  this  combination  to 
express  continued  action,  see  theyiiote  on  ch.  6:  9.)  Ewald  adheres 
more  closely  to  the  form  of  the  original  by  simple  repetition  of  the  verb 
(weinen  weinen  sollst  du  nicht,  begnadigen  begnadigen  wird  er  dich).  Coc- 
ceius  retains  the  strict  sense  of  the  preterite  Tjas  as  an  appeal  to  their  expe- 
rience (cum  audivit  respondit  tibi).  This  yields  a  good  sense,  but  the  other 
agrees  better  with  the  context.  The  particle  of  comparison  has  its  usual 
sense  before  the  infinitive,  and  is  best  represented  by  the  English  as. 
Lowth,  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  inserts  m^p  and  changes  tib  to 
ib,  reading  the  whole  clause  thus :  when  a  holy  people  shall  dwell  in  Zion, 
when  in  Jerusalem  thou  shalt  implore  him  with  weeping.  For  the  form 
tair*  see  Gen.  43  :  29. 

V.  20.  And  the  Lord  will  give  you  bread  of  affliction  and  water  of  op- 
pression, and  no  more  shall  thy  teachers  hide  themselves,  and  thine  eyes  shall 
see  thy  teachers.  The  first  clause  is  conditionally  construed  by  Calvin  (ubi 
dederit),  Vitringa  (siquidem),  and  Ewald  (gibt  euch).  Clericus  refers  it  to 
the  past  (dedit).  But  both  usage  and  the  context  require  that  1  should  be 
regarded  as  conversive,  and  the  condition,  though  implied,  is  not  expressed. 
The  Vulgate  renders  "<x  and  yrb  as  adjectives  (panem  arctum,  aquam  bre- 
vem).  DeDieu  supposes  them  to  be  in  apposition  with  the  noun  preceding, 
affliction  (as)  bread,  and  oppression  (as)  water.  This  is  favoured  by  the  abso- 
lute form  of  Qia  ;  but  the  same  words  are  construed  in  the  same  way  1  Kings 
22 :  27,  where  the  reference  can  only  be  to  literal  meat  and  drink.  For 
other  examples  of  the  absolute  instead  of  the  construct,  see  the  Hebrew 
grammars.  Gesenius  supplies  in  before  affliction  and  oppression,  implying 
that  even  in  the  midst  of  their  distress  God  would  feed  them.     Jarchi  re- 


518 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXX. 


gards  this  as  a  description  of  the  temperate  diet  of  the  righteous,  and  Junius 
likewise  renders  it,  modice  cibaberis.  The  true  connexion  seems  to  be,  that 
God  would  afflict  them  outwardly,  but  would  not  deprive  them  of  their 
spiritual  privileges  ;  or,  as  Cocceius  says,  there  should  be  a  famine  of  bread, 
but  not  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  (Amos  8:  11).  From  the  use  of  v]33  in 
the  sense  of  wing  and  come?',  the  reflexive  verb  has  been  variously  explained 
as  meaning  to  fly  away  (Montanus),  and  to  be  removed  into  a  corner  (Eng- 
lish Version)  or  shut  up  in  one  (Junius).  It  is  now  commonly  agreed, 
however,  that  the  primary  sense  is  that  of  covering,  and  that  the  Niphal 
means  to  hide  one's  self.  The  Vulgate  renders  9fHm  as  a  singular  (docto- 
rem  tuum),  in  which  it  is  followed  by  Ewald,  who  explains  the  Hebrew 
word  as  a  singular  form  peculiar  to  the  roots  with  final  h.  (See  the  note  on 
ch.  5:  12.)  Thus  understood,  the  word  must  of  course  be  applied  to  God 
himself,  as  the  great  teacher  of  his  people.  Kimchi's  explanation  of  the 
word  as  meaning  the  early  rain  (which  sense  it  has  in  Joel  2 :  23  and  per- 
haps in  Ps.  84 :  7)  has  been  retained  only  by  Calvin  and  Lowth.  The 
great  majority  of  writers  adhere,  not  ooly  to  the  sense  of  teacher,  but  to  the 
plural  import  of  the  form,  and  understand  the  word  as  a  designation  or  de- 
scription of  the  prophets,  with  particular  reference,  as  some  suppose,  to 
their  reappearance  after  a  period  of  severe  persecution  or  oppression.  (See 
Ezek.  33 :  22.) 

V.  21.  And  thine  ears  shall  hear  a  word  from  behind  thee,  saying, 
This  is  the  ivay,  walk  ye  in  it,  when  ye  turn  to  the  right  and  tvhen  ye  turn 
to  the  left.     The  Septuagint  makes  this  the  voice  of  seducers   (rwy  nlavri- 
aavrw)  ;  but  it  is  evidently  that  of  a  faithful  guide  and  monitor ;  according 
to  the  Rabbins,  the  Bath  Kol  or  mysterious  echo  which  conducts  and  warns 
the  righteous.      Word  is  an  idiomatic  expression  used  where  we  should  say 
one  speaking.     The  direction  of  the  voice  from  behind  is  commonly  ex- 
plained by  saying,  that  the  image  is  borrowed  from  the  practice  of  shepherds 
ffoing  behind  their  flocks,  or  nurses  behind  children,  to  observe  their  motions. 
A  much  more  natural  solution  is  the  one  proposed  by  Henderson,  to  witr 
that  their  guides  were  to  be  before  them,  but  that  when  they  declined  from 
the  right  way  their  backs  would  be  turned  to  them,  consequently  the  warn- 
ing voice  would  be  heard  behind  them.     The  meaning  of  the  call  is,  this  is 
the  way  which  you  have  left,  come  back  to  it.     Lowth  follows  the  Septua- 
gint, Targum,  and  Peshito,  in  making  "^  a  negative  (turn  not  aside),  wholly 
without  necessity  or  warrant.     Interpreters  are  commonly  agreed  that  the 
particle  is  either  conditional  (if  ye  turn)  or  temporal   (when  ye  turn);  but 
the  simplest  construction  seems  to  be  that  proposed  by  Hendewerk  (for  ye 
turn  or  will  turn  to  the  right  and  to  the  left).    As  if  he  had  said,  this  warn- 
ing will  be  necessary,  for  you  will  certainly  depart  at  times  from  the  path  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXX.  519 

safety.  This  idea  may,  however,  be  considered  as  included  or  implied  in 
the  usual  translation  when.  Calvin  is  singular  in  applying  this  clause,  not 
to  deviations  from  the  right  path,  but  to  the  emergencies  of  life  in  general : 
wherever  you  go,  whichever  way  you  turn,  you  shall  hear  this  warning  and 
directing  voice.  The  verbs  in  the  last  clause  are  derived  from  nouns  mean- 
ing the  right  and  left  hand.  The  peculiar  form  of  the  original  is  closely 
and  even  barbarously  copied  by  Montanus  (cum  dextraveritis  et  cum  sinis- 
traveritis).  UFWtn  may  be  either  an  inaccurate  orthography  for  ^"^n,  or 
derived  from  a  synonymous  root  }'2H. 

V.  22.  And  ye  shall  defile  (i.  e.  treat  as  unclean)  the  covering  of  thy 
idols  of  silver  and  the  case  of  thy  image  of  gold,  thou  shalt  scatter  them  (or 
abhor  them)  as  an  abominable  thing.  Away !  shalt  thou  say  to  it.  The 
remarkable  alternation  of  the  singular  and  plural,  both  in  the  nouns  and 
verbs  of  this  sentence,  is  retained  in  the  translation.  The  sense  of  fcrssss 
is  determined  by  the  analogy  of  2  Kings  23:  8,  10,  13.  The  gold  and 
silver,  both  in  Hebrew  and  English,  may  qualify  either  the  image  or  the 
covering.  The  latter  is  more  probable,  because  the  covering  would  scarcejy 
have  been  mentioned,  if  it  had  not  been  commonly  of  greater  value  than  the 
body  of  the  idol,  b^&a  and  rtstra  strictly  denote  graven  and  molten  images 
respectively,  but  are  constantly  employed  as  poetical  equivalents.  The 
specific  meaning  given  to  fw*  by  the  older  writers,  and  by  some  of  them 
dwelt  upon  with  needless  and  disgusting  particularity,  is  rejected  by  Ewald, 
who  makes  it  synonymous  with  yn  in  Job  6 :  7,  meaning  loathsomeness  or 
any  thing  loathsome.  He  also  connects  d^tpi  with  the  noun  s^t  in  Numbers 
11 :  20,  and  renders  it  abhor.  The  common  meaning  scatter  is  appropriate, 
however,  and  is  here  recommended  by  its  application  to  the  dust  or  frag- 
ments of  the  golden  calf  in  Exodus  32 :  20. 

V.  23.  And  he  shall  give  the  rain  of  thy  seed  (i.  e.  the  rain  necessary 
to  its  growth),  with  ivhich  thou  shalt  sow  the  ground,  and  bread,  the  produce 
of  the  ground,  and  it  shall  be  fat  and  rich ;  thy  cattle  shall  feed  that  day 
in  an  enlarged  pasture.  Rosenmuller  calls  this  a  description  of  the  golden 
age,  and  cites  a  parallel  from  Virgil.  He  even  mentions,  as  a  trait  in  the 
description,  fruges  nullo  cultu  enatae,  whereas  the  very  next  words  imply 
laborious  cultivation.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  the  resumption  of  tillage 
in  the  last  years  of  Hezekiah  to  be  here  predicted.  Henderson  explains  it 
as  a  promise  of  increased  fertility  after  the  return  from  exile.  All  these 
applications  appear  too  exclusive.  The  text  contains  a  promise  of  increased 
prosperity  after  a  season  of  privation,  and  was  often  verified.  That  is, 
which  usually  has  the  sense  of  lamb,  is  ever  used  in  that  of  pasture,  is  de- 
nied by  Hengstenberg  (on  Psalm  37:  20  and  65:  14).     But  the  latter 


520  ISAIAH.   CHAP.  XXX. 

meaning  seems  to  be  absolutely  necessary  here,  and  is  accordingly  assumed 
by  all  interpreters.  The  passive  participle  nn-i:  seems  to  imply,  not  only 
that  the  pastures  should  be  wide,  but  that  they  had  once  been  narrow. 

V.  24.  And  the  oxen  and  the  asses  working  the  ground  shall  eat  salted 
provender  which  has  been  winnowed  (literally,  which  one  winnows)  with 
the  sieve  and  fan.  The  meaning  evidently  is  that  the  domesticated  animals 
shall  fare  as  well  as  men  in  other  times.  The  word  ear,  used  in  the  English 
Version,  is  an  obsolete  derivative  of  the  Latin  aro  to  plough.  7*R?»i  £^?i 
properly  means  fermented  mixture.  The  first  word  is  commonly  supposed 
to  denote  here  a  mixture  of  different  kinds  of  grain,  and  the  other  a  seasoning 
of  salt  or  acid  herbs,  peculiarly  grateful  to  the  stomachs  of  cattle.  Lowth 
translates  the  whole  phrase  well-fermented  maslin,  which  is  retained  by 
Barnes,  while  Henderson  has  salted  provender.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes 
the  grain  to  be  here  described  as  twice  winnowed  ;  but  the  implements 
mentioned  were  probably  employed  in  one  and  the  same  process.  Augusti : 
thrown  to  them  (vorgeworfen)  with  the  shovel  and  the  fan. 

V.  25.  And  there  shall  be,  on  every  high  mountain,  and  on  every  ele- 
vated hill,  channels,  streams  of  water,  in  the  day  of  great  slaughter,  in  the 
falling  of  towers  (or  when  towers  fall).  J.  D.  Michaelis  connects  this  with 
what  goes  before,  and  understands  it  as  a  description  of  the  height  to  which 
agriculture  would  be  carried,  by  means  of  artificial  irrigation,  after  the  over- 
throw of  the  Assyrians.  Grotius  regards  it  as  a  promise  of  abundant  rains. 
Clericus  calls  this  a  gratuitous  conjecture,  but  immediately  proceeds  to  con- 
nect the  verse  with  the  figures  of  v.  33,  and  to  explain  it  as  referring  to  the 
water-courses  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  open,  in  order  to  purify  the 
ground  from  the  effects  of  such  a  slaughter.  To  this,  much  more  justly 
than  to  Grotius's  interpretation,  we  may  apply  the  words  of  Clericus  himself 
in  another  place,  praestat  tacere  quam  hariolari.  He  also  arbitrarily  gives 
b?  the  sense  of  from.  The  simple  meaning  seems  to  be  that  water  shall 
flow  where  it  never  flowed  before,  a  common  figure  in  the  Prophets  for  a 
great  change,  and  especially  a  change  for  the  better.  The  same  sense  is 
no  doubt  to  be  attached  to  the  previous  descriptions  of  abundance  and  fer- 
tility. In  allusion  to  the  etymology  of  c^bs,  Lowth  poetically  renders  it 
disparting  rills.  For  e^}?  Clericus  reads  c^sb,  and  understands  it  as 
descriptive  of  the  Assyrians,  qui  magnifice  se  efferebant.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
makes  the  same  application,  and  translates  the  word  Grosssprccher.  A  simi- 
lar reading  is  implied  in  the  versions  of  Aquila  and  Symmachus  QieyaXvvo/ti- 
rovc).  Lowth  has  the  mighty  in  imitation  of  the  Targum  (-,  ">a~).  Calvin 
applies  o^w,  in  its  usual  sense,  to  Babylon.  Hitzig  infers  from  the  use 
of  the  word  afjn,  that  the  towers  meant  are  living  towers,  i.e.  the  Assyrian 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  521 

chiefs.  Knobel  applies  ihn  to  the  slaughter  of  the  Jews  themselves,  and 
understands  by  towers  their  fortifications,  of  which  there  would  be  no  further 
need  in  the  happy  period  here  foretold.  The  words  are  referred  by  some  of 
the  Jewish  writers  to  the  days  of  the  Messiah  ;  by  Vitringa,  with  a  threefold 
application,  to  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  of  Constantine,  and  of  the  sev- 
enth Apocalyptic  period  ;  by  Gill,  to  the  slaughter  of  the  antichristian  kings 
described  in  Rev.  19:  17-21.  The  diversity  and  arbitrary  nature  of  these 
explanations  show  that  there  are  no  sufficient  data  in  the  text  itself  for  any 
such  specific  and  exclusive  application.  AH  that  can  certainly  be  gathered 
from  the  words  is,  that  a  period  of  war  and  carnage  should  be  followed  by 
one  of  abundance  and  prosperity. 

V.  26.  And  the  light  of  the  moon  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  and 
the  light  of  the  sun  shall  be  sevenfold,  as  the  light  of  seven  days,  in  the  day 
of  Jehovah's  binding  up  the  breach  of  his  people,  and  the  stroke  of  his 
icound  he  ivill  heal.  Instead  of  the  usual  words  for  sun  and  moon,  we  have 
here  two  poetical  expressions,  one  denoting  heat  and  the  other  white. 
Lowth  renders  one  simply  moon,  but  the  other  meridian  sun.  Augusti  has 
pale  moon  and  burning  sun.  (Ewald  :  das  bleiche  Mondlicht  und  das 
Glutlicht.)  Lowth  pronounces  the  words  as  the  light  of  seven  days  to  be 
'  a  manifest  gloss,  taken  in  from  the  margin  ;  it  is  not  in  most  of  the  copies 
of  the  LXX ;  it  interrupts  the  rhythmical  construction,  and  obscures  the 
sense  by  a  false  or  at  least  an  unnecessary  interpretation.'  This  sentence 
is  remarkable  as  furnishing  the  model,  upon  which  the  textual  criticism  of 
the  modern  Germans,  with  respect  to  glosses,  seems  to  have  been  moulded. 
We  have  here  the  usual  supposition  of  a  transfer  from  the  margin,  the  usual 
appeal  to  some  defective  ancient  version,  the  usual  complaint  of  interrupted 
rhythm,  and  the  usual  alternative  of  needless  or  erroneous  explanation. 
The  liberties  which  Lowth  took  with  the  text,  in  pursuance  of  a  false  but 
favourite  hypothesis,  have  led,  by  a  legitimate  but  unforeseen  application  of 
his  principles,  to  results  from  which  he  would  himself  have  undoubtedly 
recoiled.  As  to  the  history  of  this  particular  criticism,  it  is  approved  by 
Gesenius  and  Hitzig,  but  rejected  by  Ewald  and  Umbreit,  who  observes 
that  the  addition  of  these  words  was  necessary  to  explain  the  previous  words 
as  not  describing  seven  suns,  but  the  light  of  one  sun  upon  seven  days. 
Maimonides  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  seven  days  of  the  dedication  of 
Solomon's  temple.  The  Targum,  still  more  strangely,  multiplies  the  seven 
twice  into  itself  and  reads,  three  hundred  and  forty-three  days,  a  conceit  no 
doubt  founded  upon  some  cabalistic  superstition.  Grotius  explains  the 
fio-ures  of  this  verse  as  denoting  joy,  and  quotes  as  a  classical  parallel,  ipse 
mihi  visus  pulchrior  ire  dies,  to  which  Vitringa  adds,  gratior  it  dies  et 
soles  melius  nitent.     It  is  plain  however  that  the  Prophet's  language  is 


522  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

designed,  not  merely  to  express  great  joy,  but  to  describe  a  change  in  the 
face  of  nature,  as  an  emblem  of  some  great  revolution  in  the  state  of  society. 
(Compare  ch.  13 :  10,  13.)  It  is  therefore  another  item  added  to  the  cata- 
logue of  previous  similes  or  comparisons,  all  denoting  the  same  thing,  yet 
showing  by  their  very  diversity  that  they  denote  it  only  in  a  tropical  or 
figurative  manner.  Hendewerk  ironically  censures  Hengstenberg  for  not 
including  the  improved  feed  of  oxen  and  asses  among  the  attributes  of  the 
Messiah's  reign.  But  the  real  inconsistency  is  on  the  part  of  those  who 
understand  v.  24  in  its  strictest  sense,  and  yet  explain  the  verse  before  us 
as  a  mere  poetical  description  or  imaginative  anticipation.  The  remark  of 
J.  D.  Michaelis  upon  this  point  may  be  quoted  as  characteristic  of  his  mind 
and  manner.  '  This  is  not  to  be  literally  taken,  for  it  would  be  very  incon- 
venient to  us,  if  it  were  as  bright  by  night  as  it  is  now  by  day  when  the  sun 
shines ;  and  if  the  sun  should  shine  seven  times  brighter  than  now,  we  must 
be  blinded.'  According  to  Gesenius,  the  wounds  referred  to  in  the  last 
clause  are  the  wounds  inflicted  by  false  teachers ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no 
reason  for  restricting  the  import  of  the  terms  as  descriptive  of  suffering  in 
general. 

V.  27.  Behold,  the  name  of  Jehovah  cometh  from  afar,  burning  his  an- 
ger and  heavy  the  ascent  (of  smoke):  his  lips  are  full  of  wrath  and  his 
tongue  as  a  devouring  fire.  Koppe  begins  a  new  division  here  without 
necessity.  By  the  name  of  Jehovah  we  are  not  simply  to  understand 
Jehovah  himself,  but  Jehovah  as  revealed  in  word  or  act,  and  therefore 
glorious.  (Grotius  :  Deus  omni  laude  dignissimus.)  According  to  Ray- 
mund  Martini,  the  expression  was  applied  by  the  old  Jews  to  the  Messiah. 
Gill  thinks  it  may  denote  the  angel  who  destroyed  Sennacherib's  army. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  takes  the  name  in  its  strict  sense  and  translates  the  verb 
erschallet  (the  name  of  Jehovah  sounds  or  echoes  from  afar),  pinna  is  by 
some  referred  to  time,  but  the  proper  local  sense  is  more  appropriate. 
Clericus  alone  translates  isat  his  face  (ardens  facies  ejus).  The  English 
Version  makes  isa  agree  with  rati  and  supplies  a  preposition  before  isx 
(burning  with  his  anger).  Others  supply  the  preposition  before  ^s'a  (with 
his  burning  anger).  Others  make  the  clause  an  independent  proposition 
(burning  is  his  anger).  Ewald  adopts  a  construction  similar  to  that  of  the 
ablative  absolute  in  Latin  (his  anger  burning).  Augusti  supposes  the  next 
words  to  mean,  he  makes  the  burden  heavy,  which  implies  a  change  of  text, 
at  least  as  to  the  pointing.  Most  of  the  late  interpreters  explain  nx^s  as 
synonymous  with  natoa,  meaning  strictly  the  ascent  of  smoke  or  flame,  and 
by  metonymy  the  smoke  or  flame  itself.  (Compare  the  notes  on.ch.  9:  18, 
19.)  Barnes:  the  flame  is  heavy.  Henderson:  dense  is  the  smoke.  Hen- 
dewerk has  Rauchsaule  (column  of  smoke),  Umbreit  aufstiegcnder  Brand 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX.  523 


ascending  fire  or  conflagration) .  Ewald  and  Knobel  have  reverted  to  the 
primary  meaning,  ascent  or  elevation.  The  former  has  gewaltiger  Erhe- 
bung ;  the  latter,  heavy  (i.  e.  slow)  is  the  rising  of  Jehovah  in  the  distance. 
Oecolampadius  understands  by  lips  and  tongue  the  sentence  pronounced 
by  the  Messiah  on  his  enemies :  but  the  words  are  to  be  strictly  under- 
stood, as  traits  in  the  prophetic  picture  of  this  terrible  epiphany. 

V.  28.  And  his  breath  (or  spirit),  like  an  overflowing  stream,  shall  divide 
as  far  as  the  neck,  to  sift  the  nations  in  the  sieve  of  falsehood,  and  a  mis- 
leading bridle  on  the  jaws  of  the  people.  There  are  here  three  metaphors 
employed  to  express  the  same  general  idea,  those  of  a  flood,  a  sieve,  and  a 
bridle.  Umbreit  is  singular  in  putting  a  favourable  meaning  on  the  last 
two,  as  implying  that  the  nations  should  be  purged,  not  destroyed,  by  sifting, 
and  that  when  they  thought  themselves  misled  they  should  be  brought  into 
the  right  path  by  a  way  they  knew  not.  This  is  far  less  natural  than  the 
common  explanation  of  the  whole  verse  as  a  threatening  against  Jehovah's 
enemies.  Grotius  renders  tj^n  anger,  Luther  and  the  English  Version 
breath  ;  but  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  excluding  an  allusion  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  personal  agent.  Junius  makes  nttn^  a  preterite  in  accord- 
ance with  his  notion  that  the  whole  verse  has  respect  to  the  Assyrian 
oppression  of  the  tributary  nations.  The  verb  means  strictly  to  divide  into 
halves,  and  is  here  explained  by  the  English  Version  in  the  sense  of  reach- 
ing to  the  midst ;  but  most  interpreters  adopt  the  explanation  of  Vatablus, 
that  the  water  rising  to  the  neck  divides  the  body  into  two  unequal  parts. 
The  metaphor  itself,  as  in  ch.  8  :  8,  denotes  extreme  danger.  The  phrase 
soaj  PS3  is  ambiguous.  It  may  either  mean  the  sieve  of  falsehood  (Clericus, 
cribro  mendacii)  or  of  wickedness  in  general,  i.  e.  the  instrument  by  which 
the  wicked  and  especially  the  false  are  to  be  punished  ;  or  the  sieve  of  ruin, 
pointing  out  the  issue  of  the  process,  as  the  other  version  does  the  object 
upon  which  it  acts.  This  last  sense  is  attained,  in  a  different  way,  by  Cal- 
vin, who  explains  the  words  to  mean  in  a  useless  (or  worthless)  sieve,  i.  e. 
according  to  Gill's  paraphrase,  '  they  were  to  be  sifted,  not  with  a  good  and 
profitable  sieve,  which  retains  the  corn  and  shakes  out  the  chaff,  or  so  as  to 
have  some  taken  out  and  spared,  but  with  a  sieve  that  lets  all  through,  and 
so  be  brought  to  nothing,  as  the  Vulgate  Latin  Version  (in  nihilum).1 
Barnes's  translation  of  this  clause  is,  to  toss  the  nations  with  the  winnowing 
shovel  of  perdition,  ttsrrt  is  noted  by  Gesenius  and  Knobel  as  a  Chaldee 
form,  but  neither  of  them  seems  to  regard  it  as  a  proof  that  the  passage  is 
later  than  the  time  of  Isaiah.  The  construction  of  this  verb  with  *(c"i  is 
regarded  by  some  writers  as  an  instance  of  zeugma.  Others  supply  the 
verb  to  put,  others  the  substantive  verb  to  be,  or  there  shall  be,  as  in  the 
English  Version.     The  connexion  is  in  any  case  too  plain  to  be  mistaken. 


524  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 

The  last  clause  is  paraphrased  by  Luther  as  denoting  that  Jehovah  would 
drive  the  nations  hither  and  thither  (hin  und  her  treibe).  Most  interpreters 
prefer  the  more  specific  sense  of  leading  astray  or  in  the  wrong  direction, 
with  particular  allusion,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes,  to  the  fact  that  Sen- 
nacherib was  misled  by  a  false  report  respecting  Tirhakah  the  king  of  Ethio- 
pia. The  equestrian  allusion  in  the  text  has  nowhere  perhaps  been  so  fully 
carried  out  as  in  the  old  French  Version,  qui  les  fera  trotter  a  travers 
champs. 

V.  29.  The  song  (or  singing)  shall  be  to  you  (i.  e.  your  song  shall  be) 
like  the  night  of  the  consecration  of  a  feast,  and  joy  of  heart  (i.  e.  your 
joy  shall  be)  like  (that  of)  one  marching  with  the  pipe  (or  flute)  to  go  into 
the  mountain  of  Jehovah,  to  the  Mock  of  Israel.  The  night  may  be  par- 
ticularly mentioned  in  the  first  clause,  either  because  all  the  Mosaic  festivals 
began  in  the  evening,  or  with  special  allusion  to  the  Passover,  which  is 
described  in  the  law  (Ex.  12:  42)  as  a  night  to  be  much  observed  unto  the 
Lord,  as  that  night  of  the  Lord  to  be  observed  of  all  the  children  of  Israel 
in  their  generations.  By  ciprn  we  are  probably  to  understand  the  whole 
celebration  of  the  feast,  and  not  the  mere  proclaiming  of  it,  as  expressed  by 
Lowth  and  Barnes.  This  verse  gives  an  interesting  glimpse  of  ancient 
usage  as  to  the  visitation  of  the  temple  at  the  greater  yearly  festivals.  The 
Rock  of  Israel  is  not  Mount  Zion  or  Moriah,  but  Jehovah  himself,  to  whose 
presence  they  resorted,  as  appears  from  2  Samuel  23  :  3. 

V.  30.  And  Jehovah  shall  cause  to  be  heard  the  majesty  of  his  voice, 
and  the  descent  of  his  arm  shall  he  cause  to  be  seen,  with  indignation  of 
anger  and  a  flame  of  devouring  fire,  scattering  and  rain  and  hailstones 
(literally  stone  of  hail).  There  is  no  more  need  of  explaining  Jehovah's 
voice  to  be  thunder  than  there  is  of  explaining  the  stroke  of  his  arm  to  be 
lightning,  both  which  explanations  are  in  fact  given  by  Knobel.  The  im- 
age presented  is  that  of  a  theophany,  in  which  storm  and  tempest  are  only 
accompanying  circumstances,  rre  may  be  either  a  derivative  of  nw  to  rest 
or  of  rns  to  descend,  although  the  latter  is  more  probably  itself  derived  from 
the  noun.  Lowth's  translation  of  5)«  t|?ta  (with  wrath  indignant)  is  neither 
so  exact  nor  so  impressive  as  the  literal  version.  ",'B3  is  rendered  by  the  older 
writers  as  an  abstract  noun  from  ytUo  scatter  ;  \>y  Rosenmuller  and  Knobel 
as  a  poetical  description  of  the  winds  as  scattered ;  but  by  Gesenius,  from 
the  Chaldee  and  Arabic  analogy,  as  meaning  a  violent  or  driving  rain. 

V.  3 1 .  For  at  the  voice  of  Jehovah  shall  Assyria  (or  the  Assyrian)  be 
broken,  with  the  rod  shall  he  smite.  The  "jo  before  ^ip  may  denote  either 
the  time  or  the  cause  of  the  effect  described,  and  may  accordingly  be  ren- 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXX.  525 

dered  either  at  or  by.  The  first  may  be  preferred  as  more  comprehensive 
and  as  really  including  the  other.  WQH  originally  means  to  be  broken,  and 
is  so  used  in  ch.  7  :  8  above  ;  but  it  is  commonly  applied,  in  a  figurative 
sense,  to  the  breaking  of  the  spirit  or  the  courage  by  alarm.  Here  some 
translate  it  beaten  down,  as  in  the  English  Version,  others  frightened  or 
confounded,  as  in  Luther's  (erschrecken).  There  are  two  constructions  of 
the  last  clause,  one  continuing  Assyria  as  the  subject  of  the  verb,  the  other 
referring  it  to  Jehovah.  Forerius  amends  the  text  by  reading  ns?  in  the 
passive  (he  shall  be  smitten),  which  gratuitous  suggestion  is  adopted  by  Dathe 
and  Koppe.  Lowth,  not  content  with  supplying  the  relative  before  tftrj, 
inserts  it  in  the  text,  on  the  authority  of  Seeker's  conjecture  that  it  may 
have  dropped  out  (forte  excidit).  The  past  form  given  to  the  verb,  not 
only  in  the  English  Version  (smote)  but  by  Hitzig  (schlug),  seems  entirely 
unauthorized  by  usage  or  the  context.  Ewald,  less  violently,  reads  it  as  a 
present  (schlagt)  ,  but  even  if  Assyria  be  the  subject  of  the  clause,  it  is 
clear  that  the  Prophet  speaks  of  her  oppressions  as  being,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  still  future  to  his  own  perceptions.  A  much  less  simple  and  success- 
ful method  of  accounting  for  the  future  is  by  making  the  verb  mean  that 
Assyria  was  ready  or  about  to  smite,  with  Lowth  and  Vitringa  (vriga  per- 
cussurus).  But  by  far  the  most  natural  construction  of  the  clause  is  that 
which  supplies  nothing  and  adheres  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  future,  by  con- 
necting ns?  not  with  "WSfil  but  fWj,  both  which  are  mentioned  in  the  other 
clause.  Gesenius,  although  right  in  this  respect,  mars  the  beautiful  sim- 
plicity of  the  construction,  by  gratuitously  introducing  when  at  the  beginning 
of  the  first  clause,  and  then  at  the  beginning  of  the  second.  No  less  ob- 
jectionable, on  the  score  of  taste,  is  the  use  of  yea  or  yes,  as  an  equivalent 
to  **,  by  DeWette  and  Ewald.  Knobel's  translation  of  the  same  word  by 
then  is  as  arbitrary  here  as  in  ch.  7  :  9,  the  only  authority  to  which  he  ap- 
peals. The  express  mention  of  Assyria  in  this  verse,  though  it  does  not 
prove  it  to  have  been  from  the  beginning  the  specific  subject  of  the  prophecy, 
does  show  that  it  was  a  conspicuous  object  in  Isaiah's  view,  as  an  example 
both  of  danger  and  deliverance,  and  that. at  this  point  he  concentrates  his 
prophetic  vision  on  this  object  as  a  signal  illustration  of  the  general  truths 
which  he  has  been  announcing. 

V.  32.  And  every  passage  of  the  rod  of  doom,  which  Jehovah  will  lay 
(or  cause  to  rest)  upon  him,  shall  be  with  tabrets  and  harps,  and  with  fights 
of  shaking  it  is  fought  therein.  There  is  the  same  diversity  of  judgment 
here  as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  with  respect  to  the  question  whether  the  rod 
mentioned  in  the  first  clause  is  the  rod  which  the  Assyrian  wielded,  or  the 
rod  which  smote  himself.  On  the  former  supposition,  the  sense  would  seem 
to  be,  that  in  every  place  through  which  the  rod  of  the  oppressor  had  before 


526  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXX. 


passed  there  should  now  be  heard  the  sound  of  joyful  music.  This  con- 
struction not  only  involves  the  necessity  of  supplying  in  before  the  first 
noun,  but  leaves  the  words  which  Jehovah  will  lay  upon  him  either  unmean- 
ing or  irrelevant,  or  at  least  far  less  appropriate  than  if  the  reference  be  to 
Jehovah's  judgments  on  Assyria,  which  is  further  recommended  by  the 
reasons  above  given  for  applying  the  last  words  of  v.  31  to  the  same  catas- 
trophe. Assuming  therefore  that  the  clause  before  us  was  likewise  intended 
to  be  so  applied,  the  sense  would  seem  to  be  that  every  passage  of  Jehovah's 
rod  (i.  e.  every  stroke  which  passes  from  it  to  the  object)  will  be  hailed,  by 
those  whom  the  Assyrian  had  oppressed,  with  joy  and  exultation.  It  is  an 
ingenious  suggestion  of  Henderson,  though  scarcely  justified  by  Hebrew 
usage,  that  "oss  is  here  employed  in  the  peculiar  acceptation  of  the  English 
pass,  as  used  to  denote  a  push  or  thrust  in  fencing.  This  combination, 
however,  is  not  needed  to  justify  his  version  (stroke).  For  rvibis  Clericus 
reads  rnons  or  ~D^  (supplicii),  on  the  ground  of  which  conjecture,  and  the 
authority  of  one  or  two  manuscripts,  Lowth  amends  the  text  and  translates 
accordingly  (the  rod  of  correction).  In  like  manner  J.  D.  Michaelis  in  his 
German  version  (strafenden  Stab).  None  of  the  later  writers  seem  to 
have  retained  this  needless  emendation.  The  common  version,  grounded 
staff,  is  almost  unintelligible.  It  may  have  some  connexion  with  Calvin's 
explanation  of  the  Hebrew  phrase  as  meaning,  a  staff  grounded,  that  is  firmly 
planted,  in  the  object  smitten,  or  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  (in  his  Notes)  has  it,  well 
laid  on  (recht  vest  und  stark  auf  den  Riicken  geleget).  This,  to  use  a 
favourite  expression  of  the  grdat  Reformer,  seems  both  forced  and  frigid.  It 
is  now  very  generally  agreed  that  rns^  denotes  the  divine  determination  or 
decree,  and  that  the  whole  phrase  means  the  rod  appointed  by  him,  or  to  put 
it  in  a  form  at  once  exact  and  poetical,  the  rod  of  destiny  or  doom. 
Umbreit  attaches  to  the  words  the  specific  sense  of  long  since  determined 
(lang  verhangte),  which  is  not  in  the  original.  The  tabrets  and  harps  are 
not  here  named  as  the  ordinary  military  music  (Gill),  nor  as  the  sacred 
music  which  on  particular  occasions  was  connected  with  the  march  of  ar- 
mies (2  Chron.  20:  21,  22).  ,  Nor  is  the  meaning  that  Jehovah  would 
overcome  the  enemy  as  if  in  sport  or  like  a  merry-making  (Grotius),  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  words  that  follow,  battles  of  shaking,  i.  e.  agitating 
or  tumultuous  battles,  or  as  some  explain  the  words,  convulsive,  struggling 
conflicts.  The  true  sense  seems  to  be,  that  every  stroke  would  be  attended 
with  rejoicing  on  the  part  of  the  spectators,  and  especially  of  those  who  had 
been  subject  to  oppression.  tan^3  may  agree  with  nirn  as  an  active  or  depo- 
nent verb,  or  be  construed  impersonally  as  by  Ewald  (wird  gekampft).  The 
keri  (oa)  must  of  course  mean  with  them  i.  e.  the  Assyrians.  The  kethib 
(na)  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  with  her  i.  e.  Assyria  considered  as  a 
country.     But  Ewald  takes  it  to  mean  there,  or  literally  in  it,  i.  e.  in  the 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.   XXX.  527 

Holy  Land.  This,  if  we  make  the  verb  impersonal,  is  natural  enough,  ex- 
cept that  it  assumes  an  antecedent  not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  context. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  the  general  sense  is  plain,  to  wit,  that  God  would  vio- 
lently overthrow  Assyria. 

V.  33.  For  arranged  since  yesterday  is  Tophet ;  even  it  for  the  king  is 
prepared ;  he  has  deepened,  he  has  widened  (it)  ;  its  pile  fire  and  wood  in 
plenty  ;  the  breath  of  Jehovah,  like  a  stream  of  brimstone,  kindles  it.  It  is 
universally  agreed  that  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  king  is  here  described 
as  a  burning  of  his  body  at  a  stake  or  on  a  funeral-pile.  But  whether  the 
king  mentioned  be  an  individual  king  or  an  ideal  representative  of  all,  and 
whether  this  is  a  mere  figurative  representation  of  his  temporal  destruction 
or  a  premonition  of  his  doom  hereafter,  are  disputed  questions.  Tophet  is 
well  known  to  have  been  the  name  of  a  place  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom 
where  children  were  sacrificed  to  Moloch,  and  on  that  account  afterwards 
defiled  by  the  deposit  of  the  filth  of  the  city,  to  consume  which  constant 
fires  were  maintained.  Hence,  by  a  natural  association,  Tophet,  as  well  as 
the  more  general  name,  Valley  of  Hinnom,  was  applied  by  the  later  Jews 
to  the  place  of  future  torment.  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  of  this  verse  ren- 
ders nnsn  by'DDna.  The  name  Tophet  has  been  commonly  derived  from 
Opm,  to  spit  upon,  as  an  expression  of  abhorrence ;  but  Gesenius  derives  it 
from  the  Persian  j^vJCilj*  to  burn,  with  which  he  also  connects  Sultituv,  as 
originally  meaning  to  burn  and  secondarily  to  bury.  If  this  be  the  correct 
etymology  of  ntoft,  it  denotes  a  place  of  burning  in  the  general,  and  was  only 
applied  to  the  spot  before  mentioned  by  way  of  eminence,  in  allusion  either 
to  the  sacrificial  or  the  purgatorial  fires  there  maintained,  or  both.  On  this 
hypothesis,  it  would  be  altogether  natural  to  understand  the  word  here  in  an 
indefinite  or  generic  sense,  as  meaning  a  place  of  burning,  such  as  a  stake 
or  a  funeral  pile,  and  it  is  so  explained  accordingly  by  Gesenius  (Brand- 
statte),  Ewald  (Scheiterhaufen),  and  other  late  interpreters.  The  question 
whether  it  is  here  used  to  describe  the  place  of  future  torments  or  as  a  mere 
poetical  description  of  the  temporal  destruction  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  is  the 
less  important,  as  the  language  must  in  either  case  be  figurative,  and  can 
teach  us  nothing  therefore  as  to  the  real  circumstances  either  of  the  first  or 
second  death.  Considering  however  the  appalling  grandeur  of  the  images 
presented,  and  our  Saviour's  use  of  similar  expressions  to  describe  the  place 
of  everlasting  punishment,  and  also  the  certainty  deducible  from  other  scrip- 
tures, that  a  wicked  king  destroyed  in  the  act  of  fighting  against  God  must  be 
punished  in  the  other  world  as  well  as  this,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  understand 
the  passage  as  at  least  including  a  denunciation  of  eternal  misery,  although 
the  general  idea  which  the  figures  were  intended  to  express  is  that  of  sudden 
terrible  destruction.     As  the  phrase  ^»rjKn  has  been  variously  explained  to 


528  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXI. 

mean  long  ago,  and  just  now  or  a  little  while  ago,  it  is  best  to  retain  the 
original  expression  with  Calvin  (ab  hesterno)  and  Umbreit  (von  gestern 
her).  The  old  Jews  have  a  curious  tradition  that  hell  was  made  on  the 
second  day  of  the  creation,  or  the  first  that  had  a  yesterday,  for  which  rea- 
son God  pronounced  no  blessing  on  it.  The  verbs  p^nsn  and  nrrn  must 
be  either  construed  with  Jehovah  or  indefinitely.  rrriB  means  the  whole 
circumference  and  area  of  the  place  of  burning.  Gesenius  connects  it  with 
the  foregoing  verbs  to  make  the  structure  of  the  sentence  more  symmetrical 
(deep  and  wide  is  its  pile — fire  and  wood  in  plenty)  ;  but  Hitzig  vindicates 
the  masoretic  interpunction  on  the  ground  that  the  foregoing  verbs  cannot 
be  applied  to  the  pile,  and  that  the  following  proposition  would  in  that 
case  have  no  predicate.  For  a  similar  expression  he  refers  to  Jer.  24 :  2. 
Lowth  connects  R$*ia  with  ^x  and  renders  it  a  fiery  pyre,  which  Barnes 
has  altered  to  a  pyre  for  the  flame,  both  overlooking  the  pronominal  suffix. 
Augusti  takes  the  final  n  as  a  suffix  (his  Tophet)  ;  but  it  is  commonly  re- 
garded as  a  paragogic  letter  or  a  mere  euphonic  variation  of  the  usual /orm 
r-BR.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  however,  thinks  that  if  the  present  reading  is  the 
true  one,  it  must  be  a  verb  meaning  thou  shalt  be  deceived,  another  allusion 
to  the  false  report  about  the  Ethiopians.  DeWette  renders  ^3  at  the  begin- 
ning yea ;  but  it  has  really  its  proper  sense  of  for,  because,  connecting  this 
verse,  either  with  the  one  immediately  before  it,  or  with  the  remoter  context. 
Knobel  supposes  that  the  images  of  this  verse  were  selected  because  the 
burning  of  the  dead  was  foreign  from  the  Jewish  customs  and  abhorrent  to 
their  feelings.  According  to  Clericus,  the  Tophet  of  this  verse  was  a  place 
of  burning  really  prepared  by  Hezekiah  for  the  bodies  of  the  slain  Assyrians, 
but  entirely  distinct  from  the  Tophet  near  Jerusalem.  Luther  by  rendering 
it  pit  (die  Grube),  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  churchyard  (Kirchhof),  destroy  its 
connexion  with  the  real  Tophet  and  with  the  ideas  of  fire  and  burning. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 


Reliance  upon  Egypt  is  distrust  of  God,  who  will  avenge  himself  by 
destroying  both  the  helper  and  the  helped,  vs.  1-3.  His  determination  and 
ability  to  save  those  who  confide  in  his  protection  are  expressed  by  two 
comparisons,  vs.  4-5.  The  people  are  therefore  invited  to  return  to  him, 
from  every  false  dependence,  human  or  idolatrous,  as  they  will  be  constrained 
to  do  with  shame,  when  they  shall  witness  the  destruction  of  their  enemies 
by  the  resistless  fire  of  his  wrath,  vs.  6-9. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXI.  529 

Hitzig  assumes  an  interval,  though  not  a  very  long  one,  between  this 
and  the  preceding  chapter.  To  most  interpreters  and  readers,  it  seems  to 
be  a  direct  continuation,  or  at  most  a  repetition,  of  the  threatenings  and 
reproofs  which  had  just  been  uttered. 

V.  1.  Woe  to  those  going  down  to  Egypt  for  help,  and  on  horses  they 
lean  (or  rely),  and  trust  in  cavalry,  because  it  is  numerous,  and  in  horse- 
men, because  they  are  very  strong,  and  they  look  not  to  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  and  Jehovah  they  seek  not.  The  abundance  of  horses  in  Egypt  is 
attested,  not  only  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  but  by  profane  writers. 
Homer  describes  Thebes  as  having  a  hundred  gates,  out  of  each  of  which 
two  hundred  warriors  went  forth  with  chariots  and  horses.  Diodorus  speaks 
of  the  whole  country  between  Thebes  and  Memphis  as  filled  with  royal 
stables.  The  horses  of  Solomon  are  expressly  said  to  have  been  brought 
out  of  Egypt.  This  kind  of  military  force  was  more  highly  valued,  in  com- 
parison with  infantry,  by  the  ancients  than  the  moderns,  and  especially  by 
those  who,  like  the  Hebrews,  were  almost  entirely  deprived  of  it  themselves. 
Hence  their  reliance  upon  foreign  aid  is  frequently  identified  with  confidence 
in  horses,  and  contrasted  with  simple  trust  in  God  (Psalm  20 :  8).  IVIost 
interpreters  give  a^  here  its  usual  sense  of  chariot,  put  collectively  for 
chariots  ;  but  as  such  a  use  of  the  singular  between  two  plurals  would  be 
somewhat  unnatural,  it  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  which  we  have  seen  it  to 
have  in  ch.  21:7.  To  seek  Jehovah  is  not  merely  to  consult  him,  but  to 
seek  his  aid,  resort  to  him,  implying  the  strongest  confidence.  For  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  look  to,  see  the  note  on  ch.  17:8. 

V.  2.  And  (yet)  he  too  is  wise,  and  brings  evil,  and  his  words  he  re- 
moves  not,  and  he  rises  up  against  the  house  of  evil-doers ,  and  against  the 
help  of  the  workers  of  iniquity.  The  adversative  yet  is  required  by  our 
idiom  in  this  connexion,  but  is  not  expressed  by  D£,  which  has  its  usual 
sense  of  too  or  also,  implying  a  comparison  with  the  Egyptians,  upon  whose 
wisdom,  as  well  as  strength,  the  Jews  may  have  relied,  or  with  the  Jews 
themselves,  who  no  doubt  reckoned  it  a  masterpiece  of  wisdom  to  secure 
such  powerful  assistance.  The  comparison  may  be  explained  as  compre- 
hending both.  God  was  as  wise  as  the  Egyptians,  and  ought  therefore  to 
have  been  consulted  ;  he  was  as  wise  as  the  Jews,  and  could  therefore 
thwart  their  boasted  policy.  There  is  not  only  a  meiosis  in  this  sentence, 
but  an  obvious  irony.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing,  with  Vitringa,  that 
the  wisdom,  either  of  Egypt  or  of  Israel,  is  here  denied,  excepting  in  com- 
parison with  that  of  God.  The  translation  of  the  verbs  as  futures  is  arbi- 
trary. Ewald  refers  ^  to  previous  threatenings,  which  is  hardly  justified 
by  usage,     "^rj,  in  this  connexion,  seems  to  have  the  sense  of  withdrawing 

34 


530  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXI. 

or  revoking,  as  in  Josh.  11:  15  it  denotes  a  practical  revocation  by  neglect- 
ing to  fulfil.  The  house  of  evil-doers  is  their  family  or  race  (ch.  1  :  4), 
here  applied  to  the  unbelieving  Jews.  The  Egyptians  are  called  their  help, 
and  both  are  threatened  with  destruction.  To  rise  up  is  to  show  one's  self, 
address  one's  self  to  action,  and  implies  a  state  of  previous  forbearance  or 
neglect. 

V.  3.  And  Egypt  (is)  man  and  not  God,  and  their  horses  flesh  and  not 
spirit,  and  Jehovah  shall  stretch  out  his  hand,  and  the  helper  shall  stumble 
and  the  helped  fall,  and  together  all  of  them  shall  cease  (or  be  destroyed). 
This  verse  repeats  the  contrast  between  human  and  divine  aid,  and  the 
threatening  that  the  unbelievers  and  their  foreign  helpers  should  be  involved 
in  the  same  destruction.  The  antithesis  of  flesh  and  spirit,  like  that  of  God 
and  man,  is  not  metaphysical  but  rhetorical,  and  is  intended  simply  to  ex- 
press extreme  dissimilitude  or  inequality.  Reliance  upon  Egypt  is  again 
sarcastically  represented  as  reliance  upon  horses,  and  as  such  opposed  to 
confidence  in  God.  As  Egypt  here  means  the  Egyptians,  it  is  afterwards 
referred  to  as  a  plural.     Stumble  and  fall  are  here  poetical  equivalents. 

V.  4.  For  thus  said  Jehovah  unto  me,  As  a  lion  groivls,  and  a  young 
lion,  over  his  prey,  against  whom  a  multitude  of  shepherds  is  called  forth, 
at  their  voice  he  is  not  frightened,  and  at  their  noise  he  is  not  humbled,  so 
will  Jehovah  of  Hosts  come  down,  to  fight  upon  Mount  Zion  and  upon  her 
hill.     This  is  still  another  form  of  the  same  contrast.     The  comparison  is  a 
favourite  one  with  Homer,  and  occurs  in  the  eighteenth  book  of  the  Iliad,  in 
terms  almost  identical.     Growl  is  to  be  preferred  to  roar,  not  only  for  the 
reason  given  by  Bochart,  that  the  lion  roars  before  not  after  it  has  seized  its 
prey,  but  because  njn  more  properly  denotes  a  suppressed  or  feeble  sound. 
K^a  is  literally  fulness,  and  is  rendered  by  Montanus  plenitudine.     Other  less 
natural  constructions  of  the  second  clause  are  :  when  a  multitude  is  called ; 
who  (when)  a  multitude  is  called,  etc.     Some   read   sO£?,   and   translate   it 
either  cries  or  meets.     Most  interpreters  have,  for  Mount  Zion,  in  which  sense 
Vr  is  used  with  cnbs  elsewhere.     But  as  xss  itself,  with  this  same  preposition, 
means  to  fight  against  in  ch.  29:  7,  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  regard  this  as  a 
threatening  that  God  will  take  part  with  the  Assyrians  against  Jerusalem,  the 
promise  of  deliverance  beginning  with  the  next  verse.     Ewald  supposes  Ki£ 
to  be  used  in  allusion  to  the  name  m'xas  (the  Lord  of  Hosts  will  be  present 
in  the  host)  and  gives  Vp  the  sense  of  over  or  upon  (fiber),  which  may  either 
indicate  the  place  or  the  subject  of  the  contest.     By  supposing  the  particle 
to  mean  concerning,  we  can  explain  its  use  both  in  a  hostile  and  a  favoura- 
ble sense.     The  *»  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  introduces  the  ground  or 
reason  of  the  declaration  that  the  seeking  of  foreign  aid  was  both  unlawful 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXI.  531 

and  unnecessary.  The  hill  is  by  some  supposed  to  be  Moriah,  as  an  ap- 
pendage of  Mount  Zion  ;  but  it  may  just  as  well  be  simply  parallel  to 
mountain,  the  mountain  of  Zion  and  the  hill  thereof.  The  feminine  suffix 
refers  not  to  ifi  but  to  'ft*$. 

V.  5.  As  birds  flying  (over  or  around  their  nests),  so  will  Jehovah  cover 
over  (or  protect)  Jerusalem,  cover  and  rescue,  pass  over  and  save.  Ac- 
cording to  Hitzig,  it  is  not  Jehovah  but  Jerusalem  that  is  here  compared  to 
fluttering  birds.  But,  as  Ilendewerk  properly  objects,  nias  means  flying, 
and  is  inapplicable  to  young  birds  in  the  nest.  The  feminine  mas  also 
indicates  a  reference  to  the  care  of  mothers  for  their  young.  Gesenius  fol- 
lows Kimchi  in  explaining  bTO]  and  a^b-cri  as  unusual  forms  of  the  infinitive  ; 
but  Ewald  and  Hitzig  regard  this  as  an  instance  of  the  idiomatic  combination 
of  infinitive  and  finite  forms,  noa  is  the  verb  used  to  denote  the  passing 
over  of  the  houses  in  Egypt  by  the  destroying  angel  (hence  noa  passover), 
to  which  there  may  be  an  allusion  hero.  There  is  at  least  no  ground  for 
making  the  verb,  in  either  case,  mean  to  cover  (Vitringa)  or  to  leap  forward 
(Lowth).     To  pass  over,  in  the  sense  of  sparing,  is  appropriate  in  both. 

V.  6.  Since  you  need  no  protection  but  Jehovah's,  therefore,  return 
unto  him  from  whom  (or  with  respect  to  whom)  the  children  of  Israel  have 
deeply  revolted  (literally,  have  deepened  revolt).  The  last  words  may  also 
be  read, /row  whom  they  (i.  e.  men  indefinitely)  have  deeply  revolted,  oh  ye 
children  of  Israel.  The  substitution  of  the  second  person  for  the  third,  in 
the  ancient  versions  and  by  Barnes  (ye  have  revolted),  is  wholly  arbitrary. 
Some  explain  -itaab  to  mean  according  as  or  in  proportion  as,  which  seems 
to  be  a  forced  construction.  The  syntax  may  be  solved,  either  by  supposing 
to  him  to  be  understood  and  giving  nqjfi£  the  sense  of  with  respect  to  whom,  or 
by  assuming  that,  as  both  these  ideas  could  be  expressed  by  this  one  phrase, 
it  was  put  but  once  in  order  to  avoid  the  tautology.  Deep  may  be  here 
used  to  convey  the  specific  idea  of  debasement,  or  the  more  general  one  of 
distance,  or  still  more  generally,  as  a  mere  intensive,  like  our  common 
phrases  deeply  grieved  or  deeply  injured.  The  analogy  of  ch.  29:  15, 
however,  would  suggest  the  idea  of  deep  contrivance  or  design,  which  is 
equally  appropriate. 

V.  7.  This  acknowledgment  you  will  be  constrained  to  make  sooner  or 
later.  For  in  that  day  (of  miraculous  deliverance)  they  shall  reject  (cast 
away  with  contempt),  a  man  (i.  e.  each)  his  idols  of  silver  and  his  idols  oj 
gold,  which  your  sinful  hands  have  made  for  you,  or,  which  your  own  hands 
have  made  for  you  as  sin,  i.  e.  as  an  occasion  and  a  means  of  sin.  In  like 
manner  the  golden  calves  are  called  the  sin  of  Israel   (Deut.  9:  21.  Am. 


532  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXI. 

8:  14).  The  construction  which  makes  sin  a  qualifying  epithet  of  hands, 
is  preferred  by  Hendewerk  and  some  older  writers,  but  is  not  so  natural  as 
that  which  makes  the  former  denote  the  object  or  effect  of  the  action.  For 
the  true  construction  of  his  silver  and  his  gold,  see  the  note  on  ch.  2 :  20. 
For  the  same  enallage  of  person,  in  a  similar  connexion,  see  ch.  1  :  29. 
Trust  in  idols  and  reliance  upon  human  helpers  are  here,  and  often  else- 
where, put  together,  as  identical  in  principle,  and  closely  connected  in  the 
experience  of  ancient  Israel.   (See  the  notes  on  ch.  2 :  8,  22.) 

V.  8.  This  future  abandonment  of  all  false  confidences  is  described  as 
springing  from  the  demonstration  of  Jehovah's  willingness  and  power  to 
save.  And  Assyria  shall  fall  by  no  man's  sword,  and  no  mortal's  sivord 
shall  devour  him,  and  he  shall  flee  from  before  the  sivord,  and  his  young 
men  (or  chosen  warriors)  shall  become  tributary  (literally,  tribute),  ti^K-rib 
and  onx-fc^  are  commonly  explained  as  emphatic  compounds,  like  ys~xb 
in  ch.  10:  15,  implying  not  mere  negation  but  contrariety,  something  in- 
finitely more  than  man.  In  such  a  comparison,  the  antithesis  of  mighty 
man  and  mean  man  seems  so  entirely  out  of  place,  that  it  is  best  to 
explain  tft'W  and  Cix,  according  to  the  ordinary  principle  of  parallelism,  as 
equivalents.  In  either  case,  the  terms  are  universal  and  exclusive.  For 
■ft,  a  few  manuscripts  and  one  of  the  earliest  editions  read  vb}  not  from  the 
sword,  i.  e.  he  shall  flee  when  no  man  pursueth  (Prov.  28:  1).  But  the 
pleonastic  dative  after  verbs  of  motion  is  a  common  Hebrew  idiom.  Vitringa 
and  others  derive  ots  from  Cjctd  to  melt,  and  explain  the  whole  phrase  to 
mean,  shall  be  melted,  i.  e.  either  dispersed  or  overcome  with  fear.  But  in 
every  other  case  the  expression  means  to  become  tributary,  with  a  special 
reference  to  the  rendering  of  service  to  a  superior.  The  objection  that  the 
prophecy,  as  thus  explained,  was  not  fulfilled,  proceeds  upon  the  false 
assumption  that  it  refers  exclusively  to  the  overthrow  of  Sennacherib's  host, 
whereas  it  describes  the  decline  and  fall  of  the  Assyrian  power  after  that 
catastrophe. 

V.  9.  And  his  rock  (i.  e.  his  strength)  from  fear  shall  pass  away,  and 
his  chiefs  shall  be  afraid  of  a  standard  (or  signal,  as  denoting  the  presence 
of  the  enemy),  saith  Jehovah,  to  whom  there  is  afire  in  Zion  and  a  furnace 
in  Jerusalem.  Besides  the  version  above  given  of  the  first  clause,  which  is 
that  of  Jerome  (fortitudo  transibit),  there  are  two  constructions,  also  ancient, 
between  which  modern  writers  are  divided.  Kimchi  explains  the  words  to 
mean,  that  in  his  flight  he  should  pass  by  the  strongholds  on  his  own  frontier 
where  he  might  have  taken  refuge.  Grotius  quotes  in  illustration  the  Latin 
proverb,  fugit  praetcr  casam.  Hendewerk  modifies  this  explanation  by 
supposing  caverns  in  the  hills  to  be  referred  to,  as  customary  places  of 


ISAIAH.   CHAP.  XXXII.  533 

concealment.  The  other  construction  is  proposed  by  Aben  Ezra :  he  shall 
pass  (not  by  but)  to  his  stronghold,  i.e.  as  Calvin  understands  it,  Nineveh. 
Neither  of  these  explanations  seems  so  obvious  and  simple  as  the  one  just 
given.  Lowth  arbitrarily  translates  ioaa  at  his  flight.  Zwingle  applied 
this  clause  to  the  cowardly  desertion  of  the  standards.  The  last  clause, 
according  to  Piscator,  means,  whose  hearth  is  in  Jerusalem,  or  as  Gill  ex- 
presses it,  who  keeps  house  there  and  therefore  will  defend  it.  But  this  use 
of  fire  and  furnace  is  not  only  foreign  from  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
from  the  habits  of  the  orientals,  who  have  no  such  association  of  ideas  be- 
tween hearth  and  home.  The  true  explanation  of  the  clause  seems  to  be 
that  which  supposes  an  allusion  both  to  the  sacred  fire  on  the  altar  and  to 
the  consuming  fire  of  God's  presence,  whose  altar  flames  in  Zion  and  whose 
wrath  shall  thence  flame  to  destroy  his  enemies.  Compare  the  explanation 
of  the  mystical  name  Ariel  in  the  note  on  ch.  29:  1. 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 


This  chapter  consists  of  two  distinguishable  parts.  The  first  continues 
the  promises  of  the  foregoing  context,  vs.  1-8.  The  second  predicts  inter- 
vening judgments  both  to  Israel  and  his  enemies,  vs.  9-20. 

The  first  blessing  promised  in  the  former  part  is  that  of  merciful  and 
righteous  government,  vs.  1,  2.  The  next  is  that  of  spiritual  illumination, 
vs.  3,  4.  As  the  consequence  of  this,  moral  distinctions  shall  no  longer  be 
confounded,  men  shall  be  estimated  at  their  real  value ;  a  general  prediction, 
which  is  here  applied  to  two  specific  cases,  vs.  5-8. 

The  threatenings  of  the  second  part  are  specially  addressed  to  the 
women  of  Judah,  v.  9.  They  include  the  desolation  of  the  country  and 
the  downfall  of  Jerusalem,  vs.  10-14.  The  evils  are  to  last  until  a  total 
change  is  wrought  by  an  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  vs.  15-18.  But  fear- 
ful changes  are  to  intervene,  for  which  believers  must  prepare  themselves 
by  diligence  in  present  duty,  vs.  19,  20. 

V.  1.  Behold,  for  righteousness  shall  reign  a  king,  and  rulers  for 
justice  shall  rule.  The  usual  translation  is  in  justice  and  in  righteousness, 
as  descriptive  epithets  of  the  reign  foretold.  But  as  this  idea  is  commonly 
expressed  by  the  preposition  2,  the  use  of  b  here  may  have  been  intended 
to  suggest,  that  he  would  reign  not  only  justly,  but  for  the  very  purpose  of 
doing  justice.     The  Hebrew  particle  denotes  relation  in  its  widest  sense, 


534  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXII. 

but  is  most  frequently  equivalent  to  our  to  and  for.  The  cognate  noun  and 
verb  (rule  and  rulers)  are  combined  as  in  the  original.  The  b  before  c^-ui)  is 
commonly  agreed  to  mean  as  to,  os  for.  It  is  a  question  among  interpreters 
whether  the  king  here  predicted  is  Hezekiah  or  the  Messiah.  The  truth 
appears  to  be  that  the  promise  is  a  general  one,  as  if  he  had  said,  the  day 
is  coming  when  power  shall  be  exercised  and  government  administered,  not 
as  at  present  (in  the  reign  of  Ahaz),  but  with  a  view  to  the  faithful  execu- 
tion of  the  laws.  Of  such  an  improvement  Hezekiah's  reign  was  at  least  a 
beginning  and  a  foretaste.  The  reference  of  o'nto  to  the  apostles  appears 
very  forced,  and  is  certainly  not  justified,  much  less  required,  by  the  promise 
in  Matt.  19:  28. 

V.  2.  And  a  man  shall  be  as  an  hiding-place  from  the  wind  and  a 
covert  from  the  rain  (or  storm),  as  channels  of  water  in  a  dry  place  (or  in 
drought),  as  the  shadow  of  a  heavy  rock  in  a  weary  land.  Most  of  the 
late  interpreters  give  urx  the  sense  of  a  distributive  pronoun,  each  (i.  e.  each 
of  the  chiefs  or  princes  mentioned  in  v.  1)  shall  be  etc.  But  the  word  is 
seldom  if  ever  so  used  except  when  connected  with  a  plural  verb,  as  in  ch. 
9:  19,  20.  13:  8,  14.  14:  18.  19:  2.  31:  7.  The  meaning  rather  is, 
that  there  shall  be  a  man  upon  the  throne,  or  at  the  head  of  the  government, 
who,  instead  of  oppressing,  will  protect  the  helpless.  This  may  either  be 
indefinitely  understood,  or  applied,  in  an  individual  and  emphatic  sense,  to 
the  Messiah.  The  figures  for  protection  and  relief  are  the  same  used  above 
in  ch.  4:6  and  25 :  4.  The  phrases  heavy  rock  and  weary  land  are 
idiomatic,  but  require  no  explanation. 

V.  3.  And  the  eyes  of  them  that  see  shall  not  be  dim,  and  the  ears  of 
them  that  hear  shall  hearken.  According  to  analogy,  rirraJn  is  the  future 
of  nsttj,  a  verb  used  repeatedly  by  Isaiah  in  the  sense  of  looking  either  at 
or  away  from  any  object.  (See,  for  example,  ch.  17  :  7,  8.  22 :  4.  31  :  1.) 
In  this  case,  however,  a  contrary  meaning  seems  to  be  so  clearly  required, 
both  by  the  context  and  the  parallelism,  that  most  interpreters,  ancient  and 
modern,  concur  in  deriving  it  from  rrti,  or  in  supposing  nrrfi  to  have  been 
sometimes  used  in  the  sense  of  blinding,  which  the  former  verb  has  in  ch. 
6:10  and  29  :  9.  Some  understand  d^k'i  as  meaning  seers  or  prophets,  and 
D'ttBtt  their  hearers ;  but  most  interpreters  apply  both  words  to  the  people 
generally,  as  those  who  had  eyes  but  saw  not,  and  had  ears  but  heard  not. 
Compare  the  threatening  in  ch.6:  9,  and  the  promise  in  ch.  29:  18. 

V.  4.  And  the  heart  (or  mind)  of  the  rash  (heedless  or  reckless)  shall 
understand  to  know  (or  understand  knowledge),  and  the  tongue  of  stammer- 
en  shall  hasten  to  speak  clear  things  (i.  e.  shall  speak  readily  and  plainly). 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXII.  535 

Some  interpreters  suppose  that  this  last  metaphor  relates  to  scoffers  at  reli- 
gion, who  are  elsewhere  represented  as  stammering  in  derision  of  the  Pro- 
phet's admonitions  (ch.  28:  11).  But  it  seems  more  natural  to  understand 
the  bodily  defects  here  mentioned  as  denoting  others  of  an  intellectual  and 
spiritual  nature,  neglect  and  ignorance  of  spiritual  matters.  The  minds  of 
men  shall  begin  to  be  directed  to  religious  truth,  and  delivered  from  igno- 
rance and  error  in  relation  to  il. 

V.  5.  When  men's  eyes  are  thus  opened,  they  will  no  longer  confound 
the  essential  distinctions  of  moral  character,  because  they  will  no  longer  be 
deceived  by  mere  appearances.  Things  will  then  be  called  by  their  right 
names.  The  fool  (in  the  emphatic  Scriptural  sense,  the  wicked  man)  will 
no  longer  be  called  noble,  (men  will  no  longer  attach  ideas  of  dignity  and 
greatness  to  the  name  or  person  of  presumptuous  sinners,)  and  the  churl  (or 
niggard)  will  no  more  be  spoken  of  (or  to)  as  liberal.  The  sense  here 
given  to  ^a  rests  wholly  on  the  Jewish  tradition,  as  the  word  occurs  no- 
where else  in  Scripture.  Gesenius  derives  it  by  aphaeresis  from  baa,  and 
explains  it  to  mean  cunning.  The  sense  will  then  be,  that  a  crafty  policy 
shall  no  longer  gain  for  him  who  practises  it  the  reputation  of  magnanimous 
liberality.  Hitzig  derives  the  word  from  h|a  to  consume,  and  explains  the 
clause  as  meaning  that  the  waster  (prodigal  or  spendthrift)  shall  no  longer 
be  called  generous.  This  last  agrees  best  with  the  parallel  clause,  in  which 
the  outward  show  of  a  good  quality  is  distinguished  from  its  actual  posses- 
sion. But  both  these  versions  rest  upon  dubious  etymologies.  On  either 
supposition,  it  is  clear  that  this  clause,  like  the  other,  contains  a  specific 
illustration  of  the  general  truth  that  men  shall  be  estimated  at  their  real 
value.  Ewald  translates  baa  and  ^a  Taugenichts  (good-for-nothing)  and 
Windbeutel  (bag-of-wind). 

V.  6.  The  Prophet  now  defines  his  own  expressions,  or  describes  the 
characters  which  they  denote.  The  fool  (is  one  who)  will  speak  folly  (in 
the  strongest  and  worst  sense),  and  his  heart  anil  do  iniquity,  to  do  wicked- 
ness and  to  speak  error  unto  (or  against)  Jehovah,  (while  at  the  same  time 
he  is  merciless  and  cruel  towards  his  fellow-men,)  to  starve  (or  leave  empty) 
the  soul  of  tfte  hungry,  and  the  drink  of  the  thirsty  he  will  suffer  to  fail. 
The  futures  in  this  verse  express  the  idea  of  habitual  action,  he  does  and 
will  do  so.  The  infinitives  convey  the  same  idea  in  a  different  form,  by 
making  prominent  the  design  and  effect  of  their  unlawful  course.  The 
common  version,  work  and  practise,  needlessly  departs  from  the  form  of  the 
original,  in  which  the  same  verb  is  repeated.  To  give  it  first  the  sense  of 
devising,  and  then  that  of  executing,  is  still  more  arbitrary.  5)|h,  according 
to  the  older  writers,  means  hypocrisy ;  according  to  the  moderns,  wickedness 
in  general,  but  in  a  high  degree. 


536  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXII. 

V.  7.  Such  is  the  fool :  as  for  the  churl,  although  his  making  money  be 
not  sinful  in  itself,  his  arms  or  instruments,  the  means  which  he  employs, 
are  evil.  He  that  hastens  to  be  rich  can  scarcely  avoid  the  practice  of 
dishonest  arts  and  of  unkindness  to  the  poor.  He  deviseth  phis  to  destroy 
the  oppressed  (or  afflicted)  with  words  of  falsehood,  and  (i.  e.  even)  in  the 
poor  (man's)  speaking  right  (i.  e.  even  when  the  poor  man's  claim  is  just, 
or  in  a  more  general  sense,  when  the  poor  man  pleads  his'  cause).  The 
variation  in  the  form  of  the  word  ^3  ("'Vs)  is,  with  great  probability,  sup- 
posed by  Gesenius  to  have  been  intended  to  assimilate  the  form  to  i*»b3. 

V.  8.  As  the  wicked  man's  true  character  is  betrayed  by  his  habitual 
acts,  so  the  noble  or  generous  man  (and  according  to  the  Scriptures  none 
is  such  but  the  truly  good  man)  reveals  his  dispositions  by  his  conduct.  He 
devises  noble  (or  generous)  things,  and  in  noble  (or  generous  things)  he 
perseveres  (literally,  on  them  he  stands). 

V.  9.  Here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  Prophet  reverts  to  the  prospect 
of  approaching  danger,  which  was  to  arouse  the  careless  Jews  from  their 
security.  As  in  ch.  3  :  16,  he  addresses  himself  to  the  women  of  Jerusalem, 
because  to  them  an  invasion  would  be  peculiarly  disastrous,  and  also  perhaps 
because  their  luxurious  habits  contributed,  more  or  less  directly,  to  existing 
evils.  Careless  women,  arise,  hear  my  voice ;  confiding  daughters,  give 
ear  unto  my  speech.  Women  and  daughters  are  equivalent  expressions. 
Careless  and  confiding  (or  secure)  i.  e.  indifferent  because  not  apprehensive 
of  the  coming  danger. 

V.  10.  Having  called  their  attention  in  v.  9,  he  now  proceeds  with  the 
prediction  which  concerned  them.  In  a  year  and  more  (literally,  days 
above  a  year),  ye  shall  tremble,  ye  confiding  ones,  for  the  vintage  fails,  the 
gathering  shall  not  come.  The  English  Version  makes  the  time  denoted  to 
be  that  of  the  duration  of  the  threatened  evil,  fistf  b$  fiW|  is  by  some  ex- 
plained to  mean,  during  the  remainder  of  the  year ;  but  the  version  above 
given  agrees  best  with  the  form  of  the  original. 

V.  11.  He  now  speaks  as  if  the  event  had  already  taken  place,  and 
calls  upon  them  to  express  their  sorrow  and  alarm  by  the  usual  signs  of 
mourning.  Tremble  ye  careless  (women),  quake  ye  confiding  (ones),  strip 
you  and  make  you  bare,  and  gird  (sackcloth)  on  your  loins.  A  remarkable 
anomaly  in  this  verse  is  the  masculine  form  of  the  first  imperative  and  the 
singular  form  of  the  others.  Ewald  explains  the  latter  as  contractions  for 
M3ia*i,  Win,  but  admits  that  there  are  no  analogous  forms  elsewhere.  Kno- 
bel  thinks  it  possible  that  the  forms  are  infinitives  with  local  or  directive  n 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXII.  537 

(to  trembling,  stripping,  girding!)  but  this  is  equally  without  example. 
Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  others,  make  them  paragogic  forms,  in  which  case 
both  the  gender  and  number  are  anomalous. 

V.  12.  Mourning  for  the  breasts  (or  beating  on  the  breasts  as  a  sign  of 
mourning),  for  the  pleasant  fields,  for  the  fruitful  vine.  The  older  writers 
explained  breasts  as  a  figure  for  productive  grounds  or  sources  of  supply. 
Lowth  connects  it  with  v.  11  (on  your  loins,  on  your  breasts).  Gesenius  in 
his  Commentary  reads  cnfc ]  fields ;  but  in  his  Lexicon,  he  follows  Paulus  and 
the  ancient  versions  in  giving  D^*isb  its  primary  sense  of  striking,  especially 
upon  the  breast,  in  sign  of  mourning.  The  same  act  is  described  in  Nah. 
2 :  S,  but  by  a  different  verb.  This  explanation  is  also  given  by  Maurer, 
Henderson,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel.  It  is  favoured  by  the  striking 
analogy  of  xottto)  and  plango  (the  words  used  by  the  Septuagint  and 
Vulgate  here),  both  which  have  precisely  the  same  primary  and  secondary 
meaning.  The  other  explanation,  which  is  still  retained  by  Hitzig,  Hen- 
dewerk,  and  Barnes,  is  recommended  by  the  usage  of  ^Sb,  and  by  the  fact 
that  ^>?  is  twice  used  afterwards  in  this  same  sentence,  to  denote  the  subject 
or  occasion  of  the  sorrow.  The  argument  founded  on  the  masculine  form 
B*1fca  has  less  weight,  on  account  of  the  anomalies  in  v.  1 1 ,  and  the  remote- 
ness of  the  feminine  antecedent. 

V.  13.  Upon  the  land  of  my  people  thorn  (and)  thistle  shall  come  vp, 
for  (they  shall  even  come  up)  upon  all  (thy)  houses  of  pleasure,  oh  joyous 
city !  or,  upon  all  houses  of  pleasure  (in)  the  joyous  city.  The  true  sense 
of  the  ^s  seems  to  be  that  expressed  above  in  the  translation.  Most  inter- 
preters however  employ  yea  as  an  equivalent.  According  to  Hendewerk, 
this  predicts  only  a  partial  and  temporary  desolation,  and  Knobel  applies  it 
to  the  pleasure-grounds  ana1  houses  without  the  walls,  which  is  a  mere  gra- 
tuitous assumption. 

V.  14.  For  the  palace  is  forsaken,  the  crowd  of  the  city  (or  the  crowded 
city)  left,  hill  and  watch-tower  (are)  for  caves  (or  dens)  forever,  a  joy  (or 
favourite  resort)  of  wild  asses,  a  pasture  of  flocks.  The  use  of  the  word 
palace,  and  that  in  the  singular  number,  clearly  shows  that  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  itself  is  here  predicted,  although  Knobel  still  maintains  that  palace 
means  country-houses.  The  next  clause  likewise  contains  a  refutation  of 
his  hypothesis.  Vss  originally  means  a  hill,  but  is  applied  as  a  proper  name 
(Ophel)  to  the  southern  extremity  of  Mount  Moriah,  overhanging  the  spot 
where  the  valleys  of  Jehoshaphat  and  Hinnom  meet.  "  The  top  of  the  ridge 
is  flat,  descending  rapidly  towards  the  south,  sometimes  by  offsets  of  rock ;  the 
ground  is  tilled  and  planted  with  olive  and  other  fruit-trees."     (Robinson's 


538 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXXII. 


Palestine,  I.  p.  394.)  Most  writers  seem  to  make  1?2  here  mean  instead 
of,  which  is  at  best  a  rare  and  doubtful  sense.  In  the  last  edition  of  Rob- 
inson's Gesenius,  this  explanation  is  relinquished  and  a  local  meaning  given 
to  the  word,  amid  caverns,  i.  e.  surrounded  by  them.  But  this  reverses  the 
true  meaning  of  the  preposition,  about,  round  about.  If  strictly  understood, 
it  would  rather  seem  to  mean  that  the  hill  and  tower  should  enclose  caves 
or  dens  within  their  limits.  Hendewerk,  in  order  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  an  actual  destruction  of  the  city  is  foretold,  explains  the  verse  as  mean- 
ing that  the  people  should  shut  themselves  and  their  cattle  up  within  the 
walls,  so  that  the  interior  of  the  city,  for  a  time,  would  be  changed  into  a 
pasture-ground. 

V.  15.  The  desolation  having  been  described  in  v.  14  as  of  indefinite 
duration,  this  verse  states  more  explicitly  how  long  it  is  to  last.  Until  the 
Spirit  is  poured  out  upon  %is  from  on  high,  and  the  wilderness  becomes 
a  fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful  field  is  reckoned  to  the  forest.  The 
general  meaning  evidently  is,  until  by  a  special  divine  influence  a  total 
revolution  shall  take  place  in  the  character,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence 
in  the  condition,  of  the  people.  The  attempt  to  restrict  it  to  the  return  from 
exile,  or  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  some  great  effusion  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
Jews  still  future,  perverts  the  passage  by  making  that  its  whole  meaning 
which  at  most  is  but  a  part.  For  the  meaning  of  the  figures,  see  the  ex- 
position of  ch.  29:  17.  In  this  connexion,  they  would  seem  to  denote 
nothing  more  than  total  change,  whereas  in  the  other  case  the  idea  of  an 
interchange  appears  to  be  made  prominent. 

V.  16.  And  justice  shall  abide  in  the  wilderness,  and  righteousness  in 
the  fruitful  field  shall  dwell.  This  may  either  mean,  that  what  is  now  a 
wilderness,  and  what  is  now  a  fruitful  field,  shall  alike  be  the  abode  of 
righteousness  i.  e.  of  righteous  men ;  or  that  both  in  the  cultivation  of  the 
desert,  and  in  the  desolation  of  the  field,  the  righteousness  of  God  shall  be  dis- 
played. In  favour  of  the  former  is  the  use  of  the  word  dwell ,  which  implies 
a  permanent  condition,  rather  than  a  transient  or  occasional  manifestation. 
It  also  agrees  better  with  the  relation  of  this  verse  to  that  before  it,  as  a  part 
of  the  same  sentence.  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  sixteenth  verse,  it  seems 
to  follow  clearly,  that  the  whole  of  the  last  clause  of  the  fifteenth  is  a  prom- 
ise, since  the  same  inhabitation  of  righteousness  is  here  foretold  in  reference 
to  the  forest  and  the  fruitful  field.  It  is  possible  indeed  that  these  may  be 
put  for  the  whole  land,  as  being  the  two  parts  into  which  he  had  just  before 
divided  it. 

V.  17.  As  the  foregoing  verse  describes  the  effect  of  the  effusion  of  the 
Spirit  to  be  universal  righteousness,  so  this  describes  the  natural  and  neces- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXII.  539 

sary  consequence  of  righteousness  itself.  And  the  work  of  righteousness 
shall  be  peace,  and  the  effect  of  righteousness  rest  and  assurance  (or  security) 
forever.  Both  I itt)J?U  and  ma$  strictly  denote  work,  or  rather  that  which  is 
wrought,  the  product  of  labour.  The  translation  of  the  former  by  fruit 
introduces  a  figure  not  in  the  original,  as  TOW  is  never  so  employed,  al- 
though the  verbal  root  is  used  to  denote  the  generation  of  plants.  The 
phrase  t&VFIS,  not  being  limited  in  this  case  as  it  is  in  vs.  14,  15,  must  be 
taken  in  its  widest  sense. 

V.  18.  And  my  people  shall  abide  in  a  home  of  peace,  in  sure  dwellings, 
and  in  quiet  resting-places.  There  is  something  tranquillizing  in  the  very 
sound  of  this  delightful  promise,  which,  as  usual,  is  limited  to  God's  own 
people,  implying,  either  that  all  should  have  become  such,  or  that  those  who 
had  not  should  be  still  perturbed  and  restless. 

V.  19.  And  it  shall  hail  in  the  downfall  of  the  forest  (i.  e.  so  as  to  over 
throw  it),  and  the  city  shall  be  low  in  a  low  place  (or  humbled  with  humilia 
tion)  i.  e.  utterly  brought  down.     If  this  be  read  as  a  direct  continuation  of 
the  promise  in  v.  18,  it  must  be  explained  as  a  description  of  the  downfall 
of  some  hostile  jpower,  and  accordingly  it  has  been  referred  by  most  inter- 
preters to  Nineveh,  by  Knobel  to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  and 
by  Henderson  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  polity  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  dispensation.     Others,  thinking  it  more  natural  to  assume  one 
subject  here  and  in  v.  13,  regard  this  as  another  instance  of  prophetic  re- 
currence from  remoter  promises  to  nearer  threats ;  as  if  he  had  said,  before 
these  thing?  can  come  to  pass,  the  city  must  be  brought  low.     This  con- 
struction is  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  Prophet's  manner,  as  exemplified 
already  in  this  very  chapter.    (See  the  note  on  v.  9  above.)     Most  interpret- 
ers, however,  seem  to  fall  into  the  usual  error  of  regarding  as  specific  and 
exclusive  what  the  Prophet  himself  has  left  unlimited  and  undefined.    Howt 
ever  natural  and  probable  certain  applications  of  the  passage  may  appear, 
the  only  sense  which  can  with  certainty  be  put  upon  it,  is  that  some  existing 
power  must  be  humbled,  either  as  a  means  or  as  a  consequence  of  the  moral 
revolution  which  had  been  predicted.    Knobel  applies  the  first  clause  to  the 
slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army,  and  the  second  to  the  spiritual  humiliation 
of  the  Jews,  which  is  very  unnatural.     The  recent  writers  find  a  paronoma- 
sia in'  the  phrase  rmn  to,  which  Ewald  imitates  by  combining  the  words 
hageln  and  verhagelt. 

V.  20.  Blessed  are  ye  that  sow  beside  all  waters,  that  send  forth  the 
foot  of  the  ox  and  the  ass.  The  allusion  in  this  verse  is  supposed  by  some 
to  be  to  pasturage,  by  others  to  tillage.  Lowth  follows  Chardin  in  applying 
the  words  to  the  practice  of  treading  the  ground  by  the  feet  of  cattle  before 


540  ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXXIII. 

planting  rice,  Henderson  to  the  act  of  setting  them  at  liberty  from  the  rope 
with  which  they  were  tied  by  the  foot.  There  is  still  more  diversity  of 
judgment  with  respect  to  the  application  of  the  metaphor.  Of  the  latest 
writers  who  have  been  consulted,  Knobel  understands  the  verse  as  contrasting 
the  condition  of  those  who  lived  at  liberty,  on  the  sea-side  or  by  rivers,  with 
theirs  who  were  pent  up  and  besieged  in  cities.  Hitzig  supposes  a  particu- 
lar allusion  to  the  case  of  those  who  had  escaped  with  their  possessions  from 
Jerusalem.  Hendewerk  applies  the  verse  to  the  happy  external  condition 
of  the  people  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  Henderson  says  it  beautifully 
exhibits  the  free  and  unrestrained  exertions  of  the  apostles  and  other  mis- 
sionaries in  sowing  the  seed  of  the  kingdom  in  every  part  of  the  world. 
Ewald  explains  it  exclusively  of  moral  cultivation,  as  implying  that  none 
can  expect  to  reap  good  without  diligently  sowing  it.  Of  all  these  explana- 
tions the  last  may  be  considered  as  approaching  nearest  to  the  truth,  because 
it  requires  least  to  be  supplied  by  the  imagination.  Taking  the  whole  con- 
nexion into  view,  the  meaning  of  this  last  verse  seems  to  be,  that  as  great 
revolutions  are  to  be  expected,  arising  wholly  or  in  part  from  moral  causes, 
they  alone  are  safe,  for  the  present  and  the  future,  who  with  patient  assiduity 
perform  what  is  required,  and  provide,  by  the  discharge  of  actual  duty,  for 
contingencies  which  can  neither  be  escaped  nor  provided  for  in  any  other 
manner. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 


This  chapter  contains  a  general  threatening  of  retribution  to  the  enemies 
of  God's  people,  with  particular  reference  to  Sennacherib  or  the  Assyrian 
power.  The  spoiler  shall  himself  be  spoiled  in  due  time,  through  the  divine 
interposition,  and  for  the  exaltation  of  Jehovah,  vs.  1-6.  The  state  of  deso- 
lation and  alarm  is  followed  by  sudden  deliverance,  vs.  7-13.  The  same 
vicissitudes  are  again  described,  but  in  another  form,  vs.  14-19.  The 
peace  and  security  of  Zion  are  set  forth  under  the  figures  of  a  stationary 
tent,  and  of  a  spot  surrounded  by  broad  rivers,  yet  impassable  to  hostile  ves- 
sels, vs.  20-22.  By  a  beautiful  transition,  the  enemy  is  described  as  such  a 
vessel,  but  dismantled  and  abandoned  to  its  enemies,  v.  23.  The  chapter 
closes  with  a  general  promise  of  deliverance  from  suffering,  as  a  consequence 
of  pardoned  sin,  v.  24. 

V.  1.   Woe  to  thee  spoiling  and  thou  wast  not  spoiled,  deceiving  and 
they  did  not  deceive  thee !    When  thou  shah  cease  to  spoil  thou  shalt  be 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII.  541 


spoiled,  and  when  thou  art  done  deceiving  they  shall  deceive  thee.  The 
plural  verbs,  in  both  clauses,  are  indefinitely  construed  as  equivalents  to  the 
passive  participles.  The  two  ideas  meant  to  be  expressed  are  those  of  vio- 
lence and  treachery,  as  the  crying  sins  of  arbitrary  powers.  The  latest 
German  writers  suppose  both  the  verbs  to  be  expressive  of  robbery  or  spo- 
liation, but  without  authority  from  usage.  (See  the  note  on  ch.  21  :  2.) 
The  person  addressed  has  been  supposed  by  different  writers  to  be  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, Antiochus  Epiphanes  (Vitringa),  Ferdinand  II.  (Cocceius), 
Antichrist  (Gill),  and  Satan  (Jerome).  Most  interpreters  suppose  it  to  be 
Sennacherib,  either  as  an  individual  or  as  a  representative  of  the  Assyrian 
power.  In  themselves  the  words  are  applicable  to  any  oppressive  and 
deceitful  enemy,  and  may  be  naturally  so  explained  at  the  beginning  of  the 
prophecy.  This  verse  describes  the  enemy  as  acting  without  provocation, 
and  also  as  having  never  yet  experienced  reverses. 

V.  2.  Jehovah,  favour  us ;  for  thee  we  wait ;  be  their  arm  in  the  morn- 
ings, also  our  salvation  in  time  of  trouble.  Instead  of  their  arm,  Lowth 
follows  several  of  the  ancient  versions  in  reading  our  arm.  The  common 
text  has  been  variously  explained  as  a  prayer  of  the  present  for  the  absent 
(Vitringa),  of  the  Jewish  for  the  Christian  Church  (DeDieu),  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  for  its  defenders  (Cocceius),  etc.  etc.  The  truth  seems  to  be, 
as  Barnes  well  says,  that  Isaiah  here  interposes  his  own  feelings,  and  offers 
his  own  prayer  that  God  would  be  the  strength  of  the  nation,  and  then,  with 
an  immediate  change  of  form,  presents  the  prayer  of  the  people.  Arm  is  a 
common  Hebrew  metaphor  for  strength  or  support.  (See  ch.  9:  19.)  As 
to  the  mornings  is  an  indefinite  expression,  understood  by  some  to  mean 
early  or  quickly,  by  others  every  morning  (Kimchi :  Spai  ^pn  ^^),  with 
allusion  to  the  daily  attacks  of  the  enemy  (Henderson)  or  to  the  daily  morn- 
ing sacrifice  (Piscator).  Calvin  explains  the  whole  clause  thus:  be  thou, 
who  wast  their  arm  (i.  e.  that  of  our  fathers)  in  the  morning  (i.  e.  of  old), 
also  our  salvation  in  time  of  trouble.  But  this  is  rather  a  Latin  than  a 
Hebrew  construction. 

V.  3.  At  a  noise  of  tumult  (or  tumultuous  noise)  the  peoples  flee;  at 
thy  rising  the  nations  are  scattered.  The  modern  notion,  that  the  voice  of 
Jehovah  always  means  thunder,  seems  entirely  arbitrary.  The  voice  and 
the  rising  up  are  parts  of  the  same  figure,  and  the  one  has  no  more  reference 
to  actual  phenomena  in  nature  than  the  other.  Aben  Ezra  and  Lowth 
suppose  these  words  to  be  addressed  to  Sennacherib,  all  other  writers  to 
Jehovah  himself.  Jerome  refers  the  first  clause  to  the  voice  of  the  destroy- 
ing angel,  Piscator  to  the  tumult  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians.  Lowth 
reads  thy  terrible  voice,  in  which,  as  he  says,  he  follows  the  Septuagint  and 


542  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII. 

Peshito.  The  same  combination  occurs  in  Dan.  10:  6.  (Compare  Rev. 
1 :  10,  15.)  The  rising  meant  is  not  the  ascent  of  the  judge  to  the  judg- 
ment-seat (Piscator),  nor  the  exaltation  of  the  Assyrian  power  (A ben  Ezra), 
but  the  act  of  rising  from  a  state  of  seeming  inaction,  or  as  when  one  rouses 
himself  to  strike  (Barnes).  These  words  are  commonly  applied  to  the 
divine  interposition  in  the  case  of  Sennacherib's  attack  upon  Jerusalem; 
but  Ewald  understands  them  more  generally  as  denoting  that  such  had 
ever  been  the  effect  of  Jehovah's  presence,  and  must  be  so  still.  Some 
arbitrarily  translate  the  verse  as  a  direct  prediction  (fugicnt)  or  a  prayer 
(fugiant). 

V.  4.  And  your  spoil  shall  be  gathered  (like)  the  gathering  of  the  de- 
vourer ;  like  the  running  of  locusts  running  on  it.  By  another  apostrophe, 
the  Prophet  here  addresses  the  enemy  collectively,  b^on  is  a  name  of  the 
locust,  so  called  from  its  devouring.  (See  the  verb  in  Deut.  28  :  38.)  Hen- 
derson translates  the  parallel  terms,  devouring  locust  and  caterpillar-locusts. 
The  older  writers  understand  this  clause  to  mean  as  locusts  are  gathered,  for 
the  purpose  of  destroying  them,  even  by  children  (Calvin)  or  by  labourers  in 
pits  (Jerome),  a  custom  still  existing  in  Africa  and  Spain  (Forerius).  Junius 
explains  it  to  mean  that  which  locusts  have  gathered.  But  all  the  modern 
writers  understand  the  words  to  mean  as  locusts  gather,  i.  e.  greedily  and 
thoroughly,  not  leaving  a  tree  or  a  field  till  they  have  stripped  it  (Bochart). 
As  cpx  is  the  verb  used  to  denote  the  gathering  of  fruits  in  harvest  (ch. 
17 :  5),  Gesenius  supposes  a  specific  allusion  to  that  usage  here,  like  the 
harvesting  of  locusts  etc.  The  construction  of  the  last  clause  is :  like  the 
running  of  locusts  (shall  one  be)  running  on  it  (i.  e.  on  the  spoil).  The  verb 
ppv  denotes  specifically  the  act  of  running  eagerly  or  with  a  view  to  satisfy 
the  appetite.  It  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  desire  itself,  which  Umbreit 
assumes  to  be  the  meaning  here  (nach  Heuschrecken-Gier  giert  man  dar- 
nach).  Vitringa  finds  the  fulfilment  of  this  threatening  in  1  Mace.  4:  23. 
6:  6.  There  is  an  old  rabbinical  tradition,  which  so  explains  this  verse  as 
to  justify  the  seizure  of  the  spoils  of  the  ten  tribes  by  the  Jews,  when  found 
in  the  possession  of  the  Assyrians. 

V.  5.  Exalted  is  Jehovah  because  dwelling  on  high  (or  inhabiting  a 
high  place)  ;  he  Jills  (or  has  filled)  Zion  with  judgment  and  righteousness. 
The  first  word,  being  a  passive  participle,  seems  to  denote  not  merely  a  con- 
dition but  a  change.  He  has  been  exalted,  by  the  subjection  of  his  enemies 
(Knobel),  or  by  his  mighty  deeds  in  general.  The  future  form  adopted  in 
the  French  Version  (ya  etre  magnifie)  is  needless  and  arbitrary.  There  is 
no  need  of  making  "'S  a  relative  (Vitringa)  or  rendering  it  yea  (Barnes),  as 
it  introduces  an  explanation  of  the  statement  in  the  first  clause.    High  place 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXIII.  543 

is  not  put  specifically  for  heaven  (Gesenius)  but  for  a  lofty  and  commanding 
position.  The  last  clause  probably  denotes,  not  the  moral  effects  produced 
upon  the  people  (Ewald),  but  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah's  attributes.  Ac- 
cording to  Hendewerk,  this  second  clause  is  the  beginning  of  the  Messianic 
part  of  the  first  of  the  three  prophecies  contained  in  the  chapter.  Lowth 
introduces  here  his  favourite  idea  of  a  chorus  or  choir  of  Jews  representing 
the  whole  people. 

V.  6.  And  he  shall  be  the  security  of  thy  times,  strength  of  salva- 
tions, wisdom  and  knowledge,  the  fear  of  Jehovah,  that  is  his  treasure. 
Most  interpreters  connect  mri  either  with  msx  or  ",on  as  its  subject:  there 
shall  be  security  in  thy  times,  or,  the  security  of  thy  times  shall  be,  or  strength 
of  salvations  etc.  shall  be  the  security  of  thy  times.  But  the  simplest  con- 
struction is  the  one  proposed  by  Henderson,  which  supplies  the  subject  from 
the  foregoing  verse,  he  (i.  e.  Jehovah,  or  it  i.  e.  his  righteousness)  shall  be  etc. 
The  object  of  address  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  Hezekiah,  by  others  the 
Messiah,  but  is  most  probably  the  people  or  the  believer  as  an  individual. 
His  treasure  may  refer  by  an  enallage  personae  to  the  same,  or  mean  the 
treasure  of  Jehovah,  that  which  he  bestows.  Hitzig  supposes  an  allusion 
in  the  last  clause  to  Hezekiah's  treasury  emptied  by  the  tribute  to  Senna- 
cherib, as  if  he  had  said,  henceforth  the  fear  of  the  Lord  shall  be  his  trea- 
sure. Umbreit  makes  the  first  clause  by  a  forced  construction  mean  that  the 
evil  times  should  produce  or  foster  faith,  and  that  this  should  be  a  treasure 
to  the  people.  -(OH,  according  to  its  etymology,  means  strength,  but  in 
usage  is  applied  exclusively  to  that  arising  from  wealth.  The  original  con- 
struction is  perfectly  intelligible  and  much  more  expressive  than  such  para- 
phrastic versions  as  possessio  salutaris  (Clericus).  According  to  Hendewerk, 
this  verse  proves  that  the  only  Messiah,  of  whom  Isaiah  ever  prophesies,  is 
Hezekiah !  Knobel  thinks  that  it  must  be  addressed  to  the  people,  because 
Hezekiah  was  a  pious  man  before. 

V.  7.  Behold,  their  valiant  ones  cry  without ;  the  ambassadors  of  peace 
weep  bitterly.  The  Targum  and  some  other  ancient  versions  seem  to  treat 
tfcsox  as  a  contraction  of  z\  n*"7*  or  c!b  nanx.  Thus  Aquila  has  oQa^^ao- 
fiai  avTolg,  Symmachus  oy&Sjaopui,  the  Vulgate  videntes.  But  there  is  no 
example  of  the  form  t=b  for  t^b.  (See  the  note  on  ch.  9 :  6.)  Ewald  reads 
n^sna  and  explains  it  as  an  adjective  derived  from  bio  synonymous  with 
the  Arabic  Jlc>  to  fear.  They  fearful  cry  aloud.  This  coincides  in  mean- 
ing with  the  Septuagint  version  (Jv  -7$  cpofico  avrmv).  Most  of  the  other 
modern  writers  identify  the  word  substantially  with  Ariel  in  ch.  29:  1,  by 
reading  Ebanx  in  the  plural  or  tabanx  with  a  suffix.  The  latest  investiga- 
tions, although  still  unsatisfactory,  tend  strongly  to  confirm  the  version  given 


544  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII. 

in  the  English  Bible.  (See  Gesenius's  Thesaurus  s.  v.)  Some,  however, 
here  as  in  ch.  29 :  1 ,  give  Ariel  the  sense  of  altar.  Thus  Grotius  translates 
the  words  behold  their  altar,  and  regards  it  as  a  derisive  exclamation  of  the 
enemy,  while  Jarchi  makes  it  a  sorrowful  ejaculation  of  the  Jews  themselves. 
Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi  give  it  the  sense  of  messengers,  which  is  plainly  a 
conjectural  inference  from  the  parallel  expression.  J.  D.  Michaelis  charac- 
teristically makes  it  the  name  of  a  species  of  bird  and  renders  it  Rohrdom- 
mel.  The  messengers  mentioned  in  the  other  clause  are  not  those  sent  by 
Hezekiah  to  Isaiah  (2  Kings  19:  2),  nor  the  Maccabees,  as  being  both 
priests  and  heroes  (Vitringa),  nor  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  nor  the  two 
apocalyptic  witnesses  (Gill),  but  probably  the  three  men  sent  by  Hezekiah 
to  Rabshakeh  (2  Kings  18:  18)  or  perhaps  the  bearers  of  the  tribute, 
weeping  on  account  of  Sennacherib's  refusal  to  fulfil  his  promise.  Hende- 
werk  supposes  them  to  be  called  valiant,  because  they  ventured  into  the 
enemy's  camp  ;  others  because  they  were  probably  military  chiefs.  Their 
weeping  is  agreed  by  all  interpreters  to  be  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
ancient  usage,  as  described,  for  example,  by  Homer.  According  to  Coc- 
ceius,  the  first  clause  is  an  exclamation  at  the  death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus. 

V.  8.  The  highways  are  wasted,  the  wayfarer  ceaseth ;  he  brealcs  the 
covenant,  despises  cities,  values  no  man.  These  are  not  the  words  of  the 
ambassadors  reporting  the  condition  of  the  country  (Grotius),  but  of  the 
Prophet  himself  describing  it.  The  scene  presented  is  not  that  of  Protestant 
cities  seized  by  Antichrist  and  a  stop  put  to  a  religious  course  and  conversa- 
tion (Gill),  but  the  actual  condition  of  Judea  during  the  Assyrian  invasion. 
(Compare  Judges  5  :  6.)  The  verbs  of  the  last  clause  are  not  to  be  indefi- 
nitely construed  (Cocceius),  nor  do  they  agree  with  wayfarer,  but  with  Sen- 
nacherib or  the  Assyrian.  They  are  not  to  be  rendered  as  pluperfects  (Ju- 
nius), but  as  preterites  or  descriptive  presents.  The  meaning  is  not  that  he 
rejected  the  cities  offered  him  by  Hezekiah  (Lowth),  nor  that  he  barbarously 
disregarded  the  condition  of  the  conquered  country  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  but 
that  he  despised  its  defences  as  unable  to  resist  him.  The  last  words  may 
either  mean  that  he  has  no  regard  to  any  man's  interest  or  wishes,  or  that 
he  does  not  value  human  life.  Some  have  strangely  understood  this  as  an 
impious  reproach  on  God  himself  as  having  broken  his  engagements. 

V.  9.  The  land  mourneth,  languisheth  ;  Lebanon  is  ashamed,  it  pines 
away ;  Sharon  is  like  a  wilderness,  and  Bashan  and  Carmel  cast  (their 
leaves).  The  most  fertile  and  flourishing  parts  of  the  country  are  described 
as  desolate.  That  the  language  is  figurative,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  none  of  the  places  mentioned  were  in  Judah.  Hitzig  and  Hendewerk 
suppose  the  date  of  the  prediction  to  be  fixed  by  the  allusion  to  the  falling 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII.  545 

of  the  leaf.  But  would  this  periodical  change  be  represented  as  a  sign  of 
desolation  ?  According  to  Umbreit,  Lebanon  (the  white  mountain)  is  here 
described  as  blushing,  but  according  to  Ewald,  as  turning  pale.  Barnes 
thinks  the  reference  is  to  the  places  through  which  the  Assyrians  had 
passed.  J.  D.  Michaelis  follows  up  his  favourite  mode  of  exposition  by 
asserting  that  -»a  denotes  the  buzzing  of  the  gadfly,  but  is  here  used  in 
the  sense  of  swarming  and  applied  to  the  hostile  armies.  Cocceius  takes 
the  same  word  in  the  sense  of  roaring.  According  to  Grotius,  the  Sharon 
here  meant  is  the  one  in  Bashan  (I  Chron.  5:  16).  According  to  Cleri- 
cus,  Lebanon  is  put  for  Mount  Niphates,  and  the  other  places  for  places  in 
Assyria. 

V.  10.  Now  will  I  arise,  saith  Jehovah,  now  will  1  be  lifted  up,  now  will 
1  exalt  myself .  The  emphasis  is  not  upon  the  pronoun  (Barnes),  which  in 
that  case  would  have  been  expressed  in  Hebrew,  but  upon  the  adverb  now, 
which  is  twice  repeated  to  imply  that  the  time  for  the  divine  interposition  is 
arrived,  and  that  there  shall  be  no  more  delay.  According  to  Gesenius, 
DirhM  is  for  o^Tins,  but  others  read  c^ai-ix. 

V.  11.  Ye  shall  conceive  chaff,  ye  shall  bring  forth  stubble;  your 
breath  (as)  fire  shall  devour  you.  The  first  clause  contains  a  common 
Scriptural  figure  for  failure  and  frustration.  (See  ch.  26:  18.)  Chaff  and 
stubble  are  not  named  as  being  dry  and  innutritious  food  (Vitringa),  which 
would  be  wholly  out  of  place  in  this  connexion,  but  as  worthless  and  per- 
ishable substances.  Lowth  follows  Seeker  and  the  Targum  in  reading  inn 
■ma  for  osm-i  (my  spirit  like  fire  shall  consume  you).  Grotius  takes  rm  in 
the  sense  of  anger,  Clericus  in  that  of  pride.  Calvin  understands  the  clause 
to  mean  that  their  own  breath  should  kindle  the  fire  that  destroyed  them. 
As  specimens  of  opposite  extremes  in  exposition,  it  may  be  mentioned,  that 
J.  D.  Michaelis  applies  this  last  clause  to  the  infection  of  the  plague  com- 
municated by  the  breath,  Cocceius  to  the  evils  arising  from  the  abuse  of 
religious  liberty  in  Germany  and  Holland,  and  especially  from  efforts  to  re- 
unite the  Protestant  and  Romish  churches. 

V.  12.  And  nations  shall  be  lime-kilns  (or  burnings  of  lime)  ;  thorns 
cut  up,  in  the  fire  they  shall  burn.  By  nations  we  are  not  to  understand 
the  different  races  mingled  in  Sennacherib's  army,  but  all  nations  that  incur 
the  wrath  of  God.  The  same  word  burnings  is  applied  to  the  aromatic 
fumigations  used  at  ancient  burials  (Jer.  34 :  5),  to  which  there  may  be 
some  allusion  here.  The  Hebrew  word  according  to  analogy  may  be  a 
noun  of  place  (Hendewerk),  but  is  commonly  supposed  to  denote  burnings. 
Clericus  connects  the  clauses  by  supposing  that  the  thorns  are  described  as 
being  burnt  in  lime-kilns.     The  ideas  expressed  are  those  of  quickness  and 

35 


546  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII. 


intensity.  The  thorns  are  perhaps  described  as  cut  up,  to  suggest  that  they 
are  dry  and  therefore  more  combustible.  On  this  same  verse  J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis  observes,  that  the  Jews  at  that  time  burnt  the  bodies  of  the  dead ; 
Knobel,  that  they  regarded  the  custom  with  abhorrence.  The  former  adds 
that  when  they  burnt  the  Assyrians  they  might  be  said  to  burn  a  nation. 
Gill  of  course  refers  the  verse  to  the  future  destruction  of  antichristian  Rome. 
(Rev.  17:  16.   18:  8.) 

i. 
V.  13.  Hear,  ye  far,  what  I  have  done,  and  knoiv,  ye  near,  my  might. 
By  far  and  near  the  Targum  understands  confirmed  saints  and  repentant 
sinners ;  Junius  the  Jews  and  Gentiles ;  Hendewerk  the  ten  tribes  and  the 
Jews  ;  but  Barnes,  more  naturally,  all  without  exception.  According  to  Hit- 
zig,  the  near  are  commanded  to  know,  because  they  can  see  for  themselves. 
Henderson  retains  the  common  version,  acknowledge.  According  to  Hen- 
dewerk,  this  is  the  beginning  of  a  third  distinct  prediction.  It  is  really  an 
apostrophe,  expressing  the  magnitude  of  the  event  predicted  in  the  foregoing 
context. 

V.  14.  Afraid  in  Zion  are  the  sinners.    Not  at  or  near  Zion,  meaning 
the  Assyrians  (Sanctius),  but  in  Zion  i.e.  in  Jerusalem,  referring  to  the 
impious  Jews  themselves.      Trembling  has  seized  the  impious,  a   parallel 
expression  to  sinners.     The  meaning  hypocrites  is  rejected  by  the  modern 
lexicographers  for  that  of  impure  or  gross  sinners.    So  Calvin,  in  the  margin 
of  his  version,  has  scelratos.     The  persons  so  described  are  the  wicked  and 
unbelieving  portion  of  the  Jews.     Gill  applies  the  terms  directly  to  formal 
professors  in  the  reformed  churches ;  Grotius,  to  such  of  the  Jews  as  had 
apostatized  to  heathenism  in  order  to  conciliate  Sennacherib.     On  this  far- 
fetched hypothesis  Vitringa  well  remarks,  that  such  expedients  were  unknown 
in  ancient  warfare,  and  that  Sennacherib  probably  cared  nothing  as  to  the 
religion  of  those  whom  he  attacked.     What  follows  might  be  understood  as 
the  language  of  the  Prophet  himself,  giving  a  reason  for  the  terror  of  the 
wicked.     Interpreters  appear  to  be  unanimous,  however,  in  making  it  the 
language  of  the  wicked  Jews  themselves.     At  the  same  time,  they  differ 
greatly  as  to  the  time  at  which  these  words  must  be  supposed  to  have  been 
spoken.     Some  refer  them  to  the  past,  and  understand  the  verse  to  mean 
that  they  are  now  in  terror  who  once  said  thus  and  thus.    On  this  hypothe- 
sis, the  words  themselves  might  be  explained  as  the  language  of  defiance. 
Who  of  us  is  afraid  ('W)  of  the  devouring  fir  el   Who  of  us  is  afraid  of 
exerlasting  burnings?     Or  with  Vitringa,  as  the  language  of  complaint. 
Who  of  us  can  dwell  with  (this)  devouring  fire  ?   Who  of  us  can  dwell  with 
(these)  perpetual  burnings?  i.e.  with  a  God  of  such  severity?     But  the 
great  mass  of  interpreters,  both  old  and  new,  suppose  this  to  be  given  not 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII.  547 

as  the  former  but  the  present  language  of  the  wicked  Jews,  when  actually 
seized  with  terror.     Not  those  who  once  said,  but  who  now  say  etc.     On 
this  supposition,  it  can  be  expressive  neither  of  defiance  nor  complaint,  but 
only  of  alarm  and  desperation.     Ewald,  adopting  this  interpretation  in  the 
general,  gives  yor  the  sense  of  protecting,  derived  from  its  primary  import 
of  sojourning  as  a  guest  and  a  friend  ;  but  this  is  a  gratuitous  departure  from 
the  usage  of  the  language.     Those  who  adhere  to  it  are  still  divided  as  to 
the  application  of  the  figures.    Grotius  understands  by  the  fire  the  Assyrian 
host  that  menaced  them.     Who  can  abide  this   devouring  fire  1     Piscator, 
the  fire  of  God's  wrath,  as  executed  by  the  Assyrians.     Aben  Ezra,  the 
wrath  of  God  as  exercised  against  the  Assyrians  themselves.     This  is  the 
interpretation  commonly  adopted.     It  supposes  the  words  to  be  expressive 
of  the  feelings  excited  by  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  host.     If  this   be 
a  specimen  of  God's  vindicatory  justice,  what  may  we  expect?    Who  of  us 
can  dwell  with  {this)  devouring  fire]    Who  of  us  can  dwell  with  (these) 
perpetual  burnings  1     Many  make  the  language  still  more  emphatic,  by 
supposing  that  the  Prophet  argues  from  the  less  to  the  greater.     If  these 
are  God's  temporal  judgments,  what  must  his  eternal  wrath  be  ?  If  the  mo- 
mentary strokes  of  his  hand  are  thus  resistless,  who  of  us  can  dwell  with  the 
devouring  fire,  who  of  us  can  dwell  ivith  everlasting  burnings  1     The  last 
words  may  then  be  taken  in  their  strongest  and  most  unrestricted  sense. 
Henderson  thinks  they  have  no  meaning  if  they  do  not  refer  to  eternal  pun- 
ishment,   lib  does  not  here  mean  for  us  or  with  us,  but  is  used  in  its  widest 
sense,  as  expressive  of  relation  in  general,  to  qualify  the  pronoun.   Who  with 
respect  to  us,  i.  e.  who  of  us,  as  opposed  to  men  in  general.     Gesenius 
describes  it  as  an  emphatic  formula,  and  yet  omits  it  in  the  translation. 
Hitzig  and  Hendewerk  take  fire  and  burning  as  a  poetical  description  of  the 
plague,  by  which  they  suppose  the  Assyrians  to  have  perished.     Clericus 
more  suo  understands  it  of  the  burning  of  the  villages  of  Judah  by  the  in- 
vaders.    Knobel  says  the  burning  was  called  everlasting,  because  it  was 
everlasting  in  its  consequences,  i.  e.  it  destroyed  what  it  consumed  forever. 
But  who  could  or  would  speak,  in  any  language,  of  a  man's  being  hung 
with  an  everlasting  rope,  or^  killed  by  an  everlasting  stroke  of  lightning  ? 
DeDieu's  construction  of  the  last  clause  as  containing  several  distinct  pro- 
positions (quis  commorabitur  nostrum  1  ignis  devorat  etc.)  is  ingenious,  but 
unnatural  and  wholly  unnecessary. 

V.  15.  This  verse  contains  a  description  of  the  righteous  man,  not  un- 
like that  in  the  fifteenth  and  twenty-fourth  Psalms.  Walking  righteousnesses 
i.  e.  leading  a  righteous  life.  Walk  is  a  common  Scriptural  expression  for 
the  course  of  conduct.  The  plural  form  of  the  other  word  may  either  be 
used  to  mark  it  as  an  abstract  term,  or  as  an  emphatic  expression  for  fulness 


548  ISAIAH.   CHAP.  XXXIII. 

or  completeness  of  rectitude.     In  order  to  retain  the  figure  of  walking,  the 
preposition  in  may  be  supplied  before  the  noun  ;  but  in  Hebrew  it  seems  to 
be  governed  directly  by  the  verb,  or  to  qualify  it  as  an   adverb.     And 
speaking  right  things,  or  (taking  the  plural  merely  as  an  abstract)  rectitude 
or  righteousness.     The  idea  is  not  merely  that  of  speaking  truth  as  opposed 
to  falsehood,  but  that  of  rectitude  in  speech  as  distinguished  from  rectitude 
of  action.     Rejecting  or  despising  (or  combining  both  ideas,  rejecting  with 
contempt)  the  gain  of  oppressions  or  extortions.     Shaking  his  hands  from 
taking  hold  of  the  bribe,  an  expressive  gesture  of  indignant  refusal,  which 
Forerius  compares  to  Pilate's  washing  his  hands,  and  Gataker  to  Paul's 
shaking  off  the  viper.     Malvenda  imagines  that  the  terms  are  so  selected 
as  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  weighty  gift.     Gesenius   and   others  greatly 
weaken  the  expression,  and  indeed  destroy  its  graphic  form,  by  rendering 
the  phrase,  whose  hand  refuses  to  receive  a  bribe.     The  true  sense  is  forci- 
bly conveyed  in  J.  D.  Michaelis's  version,  shakes  his  hands  that  no  bribe 
may  stick  to  them,  and  in  Gill's  homely  paraphrase,  that  won't  receive  any, 
but  when  they  are  put  into  his  hands  shakes  them  out.    The  Chaldee  Para- 
phrase of  this  first  clause  contains  the  expression  mammon  of  falsehood, 
which  may  be  compared  with  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness  in   Luke 
16 :  9.     Stopping  his  cars  from  hearing  bloods,  i.  e.  plans  of  murder,  or  as 
Lowth  expresses  it,  the  proposal  of  bloodshed.     For  the  usage  of  the  plural 
form  o^bi,  see  the  note  on  ch.  1:15.     Shutting  his  eyes  from  looking  at 
evili.  e.  from  conniving  at  it,  or  even  beholding  it  as  an  indifferent  spectator. 
The  3  is  then  a  mere  connective  like  the  English  at  or  on ;  but  the  combi- 
nation of  this  verb  and  particle  appears  in  many  cases  to  denote  the  act  of 
gazing  at  a  thing  with  pleasure,  which  idea  would  be  perfectly  appropriate 
here.     Lowth  has,  against  the  appearance  of  evil,  which  does  not  convey 
the  exact  sense  of  the  original.     According  to  the  natural  connexion  of  the 
passage,  this  verse  would  seem  to  contain  the  answer  to  the  question  in  v. 
14,  and  is  so  understood  by  those  who  make  the  question  mean,  who  can 
stand  before  this  terrible  Jehovah  ?     But  on  the  supposition  of  an  allusion 
to  eternal  punishment,  the  answer  is  absurd,  for  it  implies  that  the  righteous 
man  can  or  will  endure  it.     This  may  either  be  regarded  as  a  proof  that 
there  is  no  such  allusion  to  eternal  punishment  in  v.  14,  or  as  a  proof  that 
this  is  not  an  answer  to  the  question  there  recorded.    The  former  conclusion 
is  adopted  by  the  latest  German  writers,  who  understand  this  verse  as  mean- 
ing that  God  is  a  consuming  fire  only  to  the  wicked,  and  that  the  righteous 
man  as  here  described  is  perfectly  secure.     On  the  other  hand,  Henderson 
separates  this  verse  from  the  preceding  context  by  a  larger  space  than  usual, 
making  this  the  beginning,  as  it  were,  of  a  new  paragraph.     To  this  con- 
struction there  is  the  less  objection,  as  the  sentence  is  evidently  incomplete 
in  this  verse,  tbe  apodosis  being  added  in  the  next. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII.  549 

V.  16.  He  (the  character  described  in  v.  15)  high  places  shall  inhabit. 
This  does  not  denote  exalted  station  in  society,  but  safety  from  enemies,  in 
being  above  their  reach,  as  appears  from  the  other  clause.  Fastnesses  (or 
strongholds)  of  rocks  (shall  be)  his  lofty  place,  i.  e.  his  refuge  or  his  place 
of  safety,  as  in  ch.  25:  12.  To  the  idea  of  security  is  added  that  of  suste- 
nance, without  which  the  first  would  be  of  no  avail.  His  bread  is  given, 
including  the  ideas  of  allotment  or  appointment  and  of  actual  supply.  His 
water  sure,  or,  retaining  the  strict  sense  of  the  participle,  secured.  At  the 
same  time  there  is  evident  allusion  to  the  moral  usage  of  the  word  as  signi- 
fying faithful,  true,  the  opposite  of  that  which  fails,  deceives,  or  disappoints 
the  expectation,  in  which  sense  the  same  word  with  a  negative  is  applied 
by  Jeremiah  (15  :  18)  to  waters  that  fail.  Clericus  explains  the  first  clause 
of  this  verse  as  a  promise  that  those  living  in  the  plain  should  be  as  safe  as 
if  they  lived  in  the  mountains.  Grotius  explains  the  second  as  a  promise 
of  literal  deliverance  from  famine.  Knobel  arbitrarily  applies  the  whole  to 
protection  and  supply  in  a  time  of  siege,  and  then  infers  that  the  passage 
must  have  been  composed  before  Sennacherib  approached  Jerusalem,  be- 
cause the  Prophet  afterwards  was  well  aware  that  no  siege  had  taken  place 
at  all.  This  charge  of  false  prediction  is  exploded  by  the  simple  observa- 
tion, that  the  verse  is  an  assurance,  clothed  in  figurative  language,  of  general 
protection  and  support  to  the  righteous.  Vitringa's  reference  of  the  words 
in  their  lower  sense  to  the  support  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  in  their 
higher  sense  to  the  happiness  of  heaven,  goes  as  much  to  an  extreme,  though 
in  an  opposite  direction. 

V.  17.  A  king  in  his  beauty  shall  thine  eyes  behold.  Kimchi,  by  an 
arbitrary  syntax,  takes  the  future  as  a  past  tense  and  refers  it  to  the  king  of 
Assyria,  whom  their  eyes  had  seen  but  should  see  no  more.  Besides  the 
grammatical  objection  to  this  version,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  other  clause, 
unless  that  also  be  referred  to  the  same  subject  by  sup,  lying  king  before  a 
distant  land.  Of  those  who  take  the  futures  in  their  proper  meaning,  some 
suppose  Jehovah  to  be  meant  (Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis),  others  the  Mes- 
siah (Abarbenel),  but  most  writers  Hezekiah,  either  exclusively  (Gesenius) 
or  as  a  type  of  Christ  (Calvin).  For  this  departure  from  his  customary 
mode  of  exposition,  Calvin  thinks  it  necessary  to  apologize  by  saying,  ne 
quis  me-  hie  allegorias  sequi  puiet  a  quibus  sum  alienus.  To  see  the  king 
in  his  beauty  does  not  mean  in  his  moral  excellence  (Hendewerk),  but  in 
his  royal  state,  with  tacit  reference  to  his  previous  state  of  mourning  and 
dejection  (ch.  37 :  1).  They  (i.  e.  thine  eyes)  shall  behold  a  land  of  dis- 
tances or  distant  places.  The  most  natural  explanation  of  this  phrase  would 
be  a  distant  land,  in  which  sense  it  is  used  by  Jeremiah  (8 :  19)  and  a  part 
of  it  by  Zechariah  (10  :  9),  and  by  both  in  reference  to  exile  or  captivity. 


550  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII. 

The  verse  before  us,  taken  by  itself,  might  be  understood  as  a  threatening 
that  the  Jews  should  see  the  king  of  Babylon  in  his  royal  state  and  in  a 
distant  land.  Interpreters  seem  to  be  agreed,  however,  that  in  this  con- 
nexion it  can  be  taken  only  as  a  promise.  Grotius  accordingly  explains  it 
to  mean  that  after  the  fall  of  the  Assyrian  host,  the  Jews  should  be  free  to 
go  abroad  without  restraint  and  especially  to  visit  the  scene  of  the  catastro- 
phe. This  explanation  he  illustrates  by  a  parallel  from  Virgil.  Panduntur 
portae.juvat  ire  et  Dorica  castra  descrtosque  videre  locos  lilusque  rclictum. 
Hitzig  confines  it  to  their  literally  seeing  far  and  wide  from  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem,  their  view  being  no  longer  obstructed  by  entrenchments  or  the 
presence  of  the  enemy.  Luther  and  others,  on  the  contrary,  suppose  the 
land  itself  to  be  here  described  as  actually  widened  by  an  accession  of  con- 
quered territory.  To  all  these  explanations  it  may  be  objected  that  the 
Prophet  does  not  speak  of  distant  boundaries  or  frontiers,  as  in  ch.  26 :  15, 
but  of  a  distant  land.  The  only  explanation  of  the  verse  as  a  prom- 
ise, against  which  this  objection  does  not  lie,  is  that  of  Henderson,  who 
translates  the  clause,  they  shall  see  distant  lands,  and  explains  it  to  mean 
that  instead  of  being  cooped  up  within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Assy- 
rians, the  inhabitants  should  not  only  freely  traverse  their  own  land,  but 
visit  distant  nations.  Whether  the  liberty  of  foreign  travel  is  in  this  con- 
nexion an  appropriate  promise,  may  be  made  a  question.  Piscator  under- 
stands the  clause  to  mean  that  their  eyes  should  see  ambassadors  from  a  far 
country,  viz.  those  of  Berodach-baladan  (2  Kings  20:  12).  But  in  this 
case  the  most  important  word  of  the  sentence  is  supplied  by  mere  conjec- 
ture. Vitringa  applies  the  whole  verse,  in  its  lower  sense,  to  the  conquests 
of  the  Maccabees  and  their  enlargement  of  the  Jewish  territory,  but  in  a 
higher  sense  to  the  glorious  reign  of  the  Messiah. 

V.  18.  Thy  heart  shall  meditate  terror.  This  does  not  mean,  it  shall 
conceive  or  experience  present  terror,  but  reflect  on  that  which  is  already 
past.  What  follows  is  explained  by  some  as  the  language  of  the  Jews 
in  their  terror  calling  for  the  officers  on  whom  they  depended  for  pro- 
tection. But  the  officers  here  named  are  not  those  to  whom  they 
would  probably  have  looked  in  this  emergency.  Others  more  natur- 
ally understand  it  therefore  as  the  triumphant  exclamation  of  the  people 
when  they  found  themselves  so  suddenly  delivered  from  their  enemies. 
Where  is  he  that  counted  1  where  is  he  that  weighed  1  where  is  he  that 
counted  the  towers?  As  a  noun,  ^fib  means  a  scribe,  and  is  commonly  so 
rendered  here.  Some  even  give  it  the  New  Testament  sense  of  y(ju,  fiare\; 
a  learned  man  or  doctor  of  the  law.  So  the  Septuagint  (jgnfiftanxn)),  the 
Vulgate   (literatus),  Luther  (Schriftgelehrien) ,   Vitringa  (doctus).     This 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII.  551 

leads  of  course  to  an  analogous  interpretation  of  the  other  terms,  as  meaning 
legis   verba   ponderous,  doctor  parvulorum,   dialecticus  subtilis,   etc.   etc. 
Others,  adhering  to  the  Hebrew  usage  of  the  noun  nfcb,  understand  by  it  a 
secretary,  financial  or  military,  perhaps  a  secretary  of  state,  or  of  war,  or  an 
inspector-general  (Barnes).     The  clause  is  still  more  modernized  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis  :  where  is  the  general,  where  the  engineer  1     But  as  the  second 
ifio  is  evidently  construed  as  a  participle,  and  in  the  primary  sense  of  count- 
ing, it  is  much  more  natural  to  understand   the  first  ib&  and  ^pti)  in  like 
manner,  as  denoting  him  who  counted,  him  who  weighed.     This  is  Ewald's 
construction  (wer  zahlte,  wer  wog),  and  Lowth  gives  the  same  sense  to  the 
words  as  nouns  (the  accomptant,  the  weigher  of  tribute).     Thus  explained, 
they  may  be  applied  either  to  the  instruments  of  the  Assyrian  domination  in 
Judea,  or  to  certain  necessary  officers  attached  to  the  besieging  army.    The 
counting  and  weighing  may  be  either  that  of  tribute  or  of  military  wages. 
The  second  *ibo  denotes  the  same  act  as  the  first,  but  is  applied  expressly 
to  another  object.     The  towers  are  of  course  the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem. 
By  counting  them  some  understand  surveying  them,  either  with  a  view  to 
garrisoning  or  dismantling ;  others  the  act  of  reconnoitring  them  from  with- 
out, which  some  ascribe  particularly  to  Rabshakeh  or  Sennacherib  himself. 
The  general  meaning  of  the  verse  is  plain,  as  an  expression  of  surprise  and 
joy,  that  the  oppressor  or  besieger  had  now  vanished.     The  Apostle  Paul, 
in  1  Cor.  1 :  20,  has  a  sentence  so  much  like  this,  in  the  threefold  repe- 
tition of  the  question  where,  and  in  the  use  of  the  word  scribe,  that  it  can- 
not be  regarded  as  a  mere  fortuitous  coincidence.     Of  the  mutual  relation 
of  the  passages  two  views  have  been  taken  by  interpreters.     Junius  and 
Cocceius  regard  that  in  Corinthians  as  a  quotation  of  the  one  before  us, 
and  Vitringa  makes  the  former  determine  the  whole  meaning  of  the  latter. 
He  accordingly  explains  the  Hebrew  words  as  all  denoting  some  form  of 
worldly  wisdom  and  sagacity  or  its  possessors,  and  the  whole  verse  as  im- 
plying that  the  great  deliverance  had  not  been  wrought  by  any  such  means 
but  by  God  alone.    The  violence  done  by  this  interpretation  to  the  language 
of  the  Prophet  is  enough  of  itself  to  make  the  hypothesis  on  which  it  rests  a 
doubtful  one.     Calvin,  on  the  other  hand,  denies  that  Paul  has  any  refer- 
ence to  this  place,  which  is  going  too  far,  since  it  is  probable,  as  Henderson 
observes,  that  the  structure  of  the  one  passage  may  have  suggested  the  other; 
The  expression  it  is  written,  in  the  preceding  verse  of  the  epistle,  introduces 
a  quotation  from  ch.  29:  14,  but  does  not  necessarily  extend  to  the  next 
verse,  which  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  mere  imitation,  as  to  form  and 
diction,  of  the  one  before  us. 

V.  19.   The  fierce   (or  determined)  people  thou  shalt  not  see.     Thou 
shalt  see  no  more  the  Assyrians,  whose  disappearance  was  implied  in  the 


552  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII. 


questions  of  the  foregoing  verse.  The  essential  idea  of  wna  seems  to  be  that 
of  firmness  and  decision,  perhaps  with  the  accessory  idea  of  aggressive  bold- 
ness. It  is  taken  in  the  stronger  sense  of  impudent  by  several  of  the  an- 
cient versions.  DeDieu  and  Capellus  (the  two  Ludovici,  as  Vitringa  calls 
them)  would  read  TSib  so  as  to  secure  a  parallel  to  S*fcJ  in  the  other  clause. 
(Compare  Ps.  114:  1.)  A  people  deep  of  lip  from  hearing  i.  e.  too  ob- 
scure for  thee  to  understand.  Deep  is  referred  to  the  sound  of  the  voice, 
the  mode  of  utterance,  by  the  Septuagint  (fiafrvcpwvoi),  Clericus  (e  prof  undo 
gutture  loquentem),  and  Vitringa,  who  illustrates  the  expression  by  the  differ- 
ence between  the  utterance  of  the  Swiss  and  the  Saxons  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  French  and  English  on  the  other.  But  the  later  writers  more  correctly 
understand  deep  as  denoting  obscure  or  unintelligible.  The  preposition  before 
hearing,  though  not  directly  negative,  is  virtually  so,  as  it  denotes  away  from, 
which  is  really  equivalent  to  so  as  not  to  hear  or  be  heard.  (See  the  note  on 
ch.  5:  6.)  Barbarous  tongue  (or  of  a  barbarous  tongue),  without  meaning 
(literally,  there  is  no  meaning).  The  verb  J*b,  in  its  other  forms,  means  to 
mock  or  scoff,  an  idea  closely  connected,  in  the  Hebrew  usage,  with  that  of 
foreign  language,  either  because  the  latter  seems  ridiculous  to  those  who  do 
not  understand  it,  or  because  unmeaning  jargon  is  often  used  in  mockery. 
Jerome's  translation  of  the  last  phrase,  in  quo  nulla  est  sapientia,  changes 
the  meaning  of  the  clause  entirely.  Some  of.  the  latest  German  writers  un- 
derstand it  to  signify  not  only  unintelligible  but  unmeaning,  and  regard  the 
description  as  an  illustration  of  Jewish  narrowness  and  prejudice.  The  paral- 
lelism might  have  taught  them  that  no  more  was  meant  to  be  conveyed  than 
the  actual  want  of  meaning  to  the  hearers.  The  whole  is  a  mere  periphrastic 
description  of  a  people  altogether  strange  and  foreign.  Henderson  supposes 
the  expressions  to  refer  to  the  Medo-Persian  mercenaries  in  the  Assyrian 
army,  but  most  interpreters  apply  them  directly  to  the  Assyrians  themselves. 
According  to  Gill,  the  language  here  meant  is  the  Latin  ;  but  the  people  he 
explains  to  be  both  Turks  and  Papists. 

V.  20.  Behold  Zion  the  city  of  our  festivals.  Instead  of  the  presence 
of  foreign  enemies,  see  Jerusalem  once  more  the  scene  of  stated  solemnities. 
Houbigant  and  Lowth,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  the  Targum,  read  thou 
thalt  see,  which  is  not  only  unnecessary  but  less  expressive  than  the  direct 
command  to  see  the  object  as  already  present.  The  address  is  to  the  people 
as  an  individual,  and  not  to  Zion  itself,  as  Luther  and  the  Targum  have  it. 
Thine  eyes  shall  see  Jerusalem  a  quiet  home,  a  tent  (that)  shall  not  be 
removed  (or  taken  down).  The  whole  of  this  description  is  drawn  from 
the  usages  of  the  nomadic  life.  Its  stakes  shall  not  be  pulled  up  forever, 
and  all  its  cords  shall  not  be  broken,  or  in  our  idiom,  none  of  its  cords  shall 
be  broken.     According  to  Kimchi,  nxab  means  for  a  long  time  (ti  yor)  ; 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII.  553 

according  to  Henderson,  until  the  end  of  the  old  dispensation.  The  peculiar 
beauty  of  the  imagery  lies  in  ascribing  permanence  to  a  tent,  which  from  its 
very  nature  must  be  movable.  This  may  either  imply  a  previous  state  of 
agitation  and  instability,  or  that  the  church,  though  weak  in  herself,  should 
be  strengthened  and  established  by  the  power  of  God.  Gill  understands 
the  verse  as  describing  what  he  calls  the  philadelphian  church  state.  Con- 
rad Pellican  applies  it  to  the  rest  and  peace  of  heaven,  Vitringa  to  the  state 
of  the  Jews  under  the  Maccabees,  considered  as  a  type  of  the  Christian 
church.  He  also  robs  the  passage  of  its  beautiful  simplicity,  by  making  it 
the  language  of  a  choir  of  teachers,  or  of  the  Prophet  speaking  in  their 
name,  and  by  giving  to  each  part  of  the  tent  a  specific  spiritual  sense,  the 
stakes  being  the  promises,  and  the  ropes  the  hope  and  faith  of  true  believers. 
On  this  mode  of  expounding  the  prophetic  figures,  see  the  exposition  of  ch. 
5:  3. 

V.  21.  But  there  shall  Jehovah  be  mighty  for  us  (or  in  our  behalf). 
Some  take  the  particles  ptt  "o   separately,  as  meaning  because  certainly. 
There  is  no  need,  however,  of  departing  from  the  ordinary  sense  of  but, 
which  the  phrase  has  elsewhere  after  a  negation.     The  connexion  of  the 
verses  is  that  Zion  shall  never  be  weakened  or  removed,  but  on  the  contrary 
Jehovah  etc.    The  construction  of  T**W  as  a  mere  epithet  of  rftm  is  forbidden 
by  the  collocation  of  the  words.     The  sense  seems  to  be  that  he  will  there 
display  his  power  for  our  protection  and  advantage.     A  place  of  rivers, 
streams,  broad  (on)  both  hands  (or  sides),  i.  e.  completely  surrounding  her. 
Cocceius  connects  this  clause  with  the  verb  of  the  preceding  verse  (thine 
eyes  shall  see  a  place  etc.)  and  throws  the  immediately  foregoing  words  into 
a  parenthesis.     J.  D.  Michaelis  supplies  we  have.     But  most  interpreters 
connect  these  words  directly  with  Jehovah.     Of  these  some  suppose  dps 
to  be  used  like  the  Latin  loco  meaning  in  the  place,  instead.     The  promise 
then  is  that  Jehovah  will  supply  the  place  of  streams  and  rivers.     Others 
more  boldly  put  eips  in  apposition  with  ttW,  and  explain  the  clause  to 
mean  that  Jehovah  will  himself  be  a  place  of  streams  and  rivers  to  the  peo- 
ple.   Clericus  supposes  the  allusion  to  nomadic  life  to  be  still  continued,  and 
the  people  to  be  described  as  encamping  on  the  banks  of  noble  streams,  but 
without  incurring  the  dangers  usually  incident  to  such  a  situation.     Accord- 
ing to  Gill,  the  ideas  meant  to  be  conveyed  are  those  of  abundance,  freedom, 
pleasant  situation  and  security.     Many  interpreters  suppose  the  situation  of 
Jerusalem  to  be  here  compared  with  that  of  Nineveh,  Memphis,  and  other 
cities  situated  on  great  rivers,  the  want  of  which  advantage  was  abundantly 
compensated   by  the   divine   protection.     But   the   latest   German   writers 
understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  God  himself  would  be  to  Zion  what 
moats  and  trenches  are  to  fortified  cities.     This  idea  is  neither  natural  in 


554  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIII. 

itself  nor  naturally  suggested  by  the  words  streams  and  rivers,  the  plurals  of 
the  terms  which  are  commonly  applied  to  the  Nile  and  the  Euphrates.  The 
most  obvious  explanation  seems  to  be  that  this  clause  is  an  amplification  of 
the  adverb  taJ.  Jehovah  will  be  mighty  for  us  there.  What  place  is  meant? 
A  place  of  rivers  and  streams  broad  on  both  sides,  i.  e.  spreading  in  every 
direction.  There  is  the  less  occasion,  therefore,  to  read  Bti  with  Lowth  or 
tab  with  Koppe.  The  situation  described  is  one  which  has  all  the  advan- 
tages of  mighty  streams  without  their  dangers.  There  shall  not  go  in  it  an 
oared  vessel  (literally,  a  ship  of  oar),  and  a  gallant  ship  shall  not  pass 
through  it.  The  parallel  expressions  both  refer,  no  doubt,  to  ships  of  war, 
which  in  ancient  times  were  propelled  by  oars.  The  antithesis  which  some 
assume  between  trading  ships  and  vessels  of  war  would  here  be  out  of  place. 
The  fine  old  English  phrase  gallant  ship  is  ill  exchanged  by  some  translators 
for  mighty  or  magnificent  vessel. 

V.  22.  For  Jehovah  our  Judge,  Jehovah  our  Lawgiver,  Jehovah  our 
King,  he  will  save  us.  This  is  a  repetition  of  the  same  idea,  but  without 
the  figures  of  the  preceding  verse.  Ewald  agrees  with  the  older  writers  in 
making  Jehovah  the  subject  and  the  other  nouns  the  predicates  of  a  series 
of  short  sentences  (Jehovah  is  our  Judge  etc.).  Gesenius  makes  them  all 
the  complex  subject  of  the  verb  at  the  end.  The  general  meaning  is  the 
same  in  either  case. 

V.  23.  Thy  roves  are  cast  loose ;  they  do  not  hold  upright  their  mast ; 
they  do  not  spread  the  sail ;  then  is  shared  plunder  of  booty  in  plenty ;  the 
lame  spoil  the  spoil.  Cocceius  refers  the  first  clause  to  the  tent  (thy  cords 
are  lengthened)  and  the  rest  to  a  ship.  Clericus  makes  the  whole  relate  to  a 
tent,  and  supposes  *pn  to  denote  the  central  pole  or  post.  Interpreters  are 
agreed,  however,  that  there  is,  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  a  sudden 
apostrophe  to  the  enemy  considered  as  a  ship.  This  figure  would  be  natur- 
ally suggested  by  those  of  v.  21.  It  was  there  said  that  no  vessel  should 
approach  the  holy  city.  But  now  the  Prophet  seems  to  remember  that  one 
had  done  so,  the  proud  ship  of  Assyria.  But  what  was  its  fate?  He  sees 
it  dismantled  and  abandoned  to  its  enemies.  The  first  phrase  is  rendered 
in  Robinson's  Gesenius,  thy  tacklings  are  broken  in  yicces,  an  expression 
which  could  hardly  be  applied  to  ropes.  The  Rabbins  understand  it  to 
mean,  thy  ropes  are  abandoned  by  the  sailors.  The  Vulgate  version  is 
laxati  sunt.  The  last  two  explanations  may  be  combined  by  supposing  the 
words  to  mean  that  they  cast  the  ropes  loose  and  abandon  them.  Kimchi 
explains  *P  as  an  adverb  meaning  well  or  rightly;  Cocceius  as  a  noun, 
meaning  the  base  or  socket  of  the  mast.  This  last  is  adopted  by  most  of 
the  late  writers;  but  an  equally  natural  construction  is  to  make  "P  an  adjec- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV.  555 


tive  meaning  upright,  which  is  justified  by  usage  and  peculiarly  appropriate 
in  this  connexion.  Some  take  02  in  its  more  usual  sense  of  flag  or  banner, 
without  materially  changing  that  of  the  whole  sentence,  tx  marks  the 
transition  from  abandonment  to  plunder,  whether  past  or  future.  W©  iy 
appears  to  be  an  emphatic  pleonasm  or  reduplication.  The  eagerness  of 
the  pillage  is  expressed  by  making  the  lame  join  in  it. 

V.  24.  And  the  inhabitant  shall  not  say,  I  am  sick  (or  have  been 
siclc).  This  may  either  mean  that  none  shall  be  sick,  or  that  those  who 
have  been  so  shall  be  recovered.  Some  interpreters  suppose  an  allusion 
to  the  plague.  The  people  dwelling  in  it  (is)  forgiven  (its)  iniquity. 
Some  suppose  this  to  be  an  explanation  of  the  sickness  mentioned  in  the 
first  clause,  as  a  spiritual  malady.  Others  understand  it  as  explaining  bodily 
disease  to  be  the  consequence  and  punishment  of  sin.  The  words  may  be 
taken  in  a  wider  sense  than  either  of  these,  namely,  that  suffering  shall 
cease  with  sin  which  is  its  cause.  Thus  understood,  the  words  are  strictly 
applicable  only  to  a  state  of  things  still  future,  either  upon  earth  or  in  hea- 
ven. The  last  clause  shows  the  absurdity  of  making  the  first  mean  merely 
that  no  one  shall  excuse  himself  from  joining  in  the  pillage  on  the  plea  of 
sickness. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 


This  chapter  and  the  next  appear  to  constitute  one  prophecy,  the  first 
part  of  which  (ch.  34)  is  filled  with  threatenings  against  the  enemies  of  the 
church,  the  latter  part  (ch.  35)  with  promises  to  the  church  itself.  The 
threatenings  of  ch.  34  are  directed,  first  against  the  nations  in  general,  vs. 
1_4?  and  then  against  Edom  in  particular,  vs.  5-15,  with  a  closing  affirma- 
tion of  the  truth  and  certainty  of  the  prediction,  vs.  16,  17.  The  destruc- 
tion of  the  enemies  of  Zion  and  the  desolation  of  their  lands  are  represented 
by  the  figures  of  a  great  sacrifice  or  slaughter,  the  falling  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  the  conversion  of  the  soil  into  brimstone  and  the  waters  into  pitch, 
and  the  inhabitation  of  animals  peculiar  to  the  desert. 

Rabbi  Moses  Haccohen  applies  all  this  to  the  desolation  of  Edom  in 
the  days  of  Isaiah.  Grotius,  who  adopts  the  same  hypothesis,  supposes 
these  judgments  to  have  been  provoked  by  the  aid  which  the  Edomites 
afforded  to  the  Assyrians  in  their  invasion  of  Judea,  and  to  have  been  exe- 
cuted by  the  Ethiopians.     Schmidius  also  applies  the  chapter  to  the  literal 


556  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV. 

desolation  of  Edom  in  the  days  of  Isaiah.  Eusebius  applies  it  to  the  day 
of  judgment  and  the  end  of  the  world.  Cyril  makes  the  same  application 
of  vs.  1-4,  but  applies  the  rest  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
Jewish  commonwealth,  mystically  represented  here  by  Edom.  Theodoret 
extends  this  explanation  to  the  whole,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Cocceius. 
The  rabbinical  interpreters,  with  one  exception  which  has  been  already 
mentioned,  explain  Edom  as  a  mystical  or  figurative  name  for  Rome,  or 
rather  Christendom,  of  which  Rome  was  once  the  representative,  and 
understand  the  chapter  as  predicting  the  future  downfall  of  the  Christian 
powers  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  On  this  same  rabbinical  hypothesis 
Vitringa  rears  a  Christian  exposition,  by  making  Edom  the  emblem  not  of 
Christian  but  of  Antichristian  (i.  e.  Papal)  Rome.  So  J.  H.  Michaelis, 
Gill,  and  others,  most  of  whom  however  give  the  prophecy  a  greater  latitude 
of  meaning,  as  a  general  threatening  of  destruction  to  the  enemies  of  Zion, 
but  especially  to  Antichrist  here  typified  as  Edom.  J.  D.  Michaelis  regards 
the  prophecy  as  yet  to  be  fulfilled,  and  thinks  it  possible  that  the  ancient 
Idumea  may  hereafter  be  possessed  by  an  antichristian  power  whose  destruc- 
tion is  here  foretold.  Rosenmuller  and  the  other  recent  German  writers 
regard  the  whole  as  an  extravagant  expression  of  revengeful  malice  by  a 
writer  long  posterior  to  Isaiah.  This  gratuitous  assumption  is  sustained  by 
the  usual  empirical  criticism,  which,  as  we  have  seen  before,  may  be  em- 
ployed on  either  side  of  any  question.  Hitzig,  while  complaining  of  the 
writer's  difFuseness  and  verbosity,  heaps  up  tautological  expressions  of  con- 
tempt in  his  own  peculiar  style.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  too,  that  the 
spirit  of  this  chapter  is  extremely  shocking  to  these  pious  unbelievers. 
Leaving  these  prejudiced  interpretations  out  of  view,  the  reference  of  the 
prophecy  to  Antichrist  may  be  objected  to,  upon  the  ground  that  the  sense 
which  it  gives  to  Edom  is  a  forced  one,  not  sustained  by  any  usage  or 
authority,  except  certain  parts  of  the  book  of  Revelation,  which  the  older 
writers  used  as  a  key  to  the  ancient  prophecies,  whereas  these  alone  afford 
the  key  to  it.  The  simplest  and  most  satisfactory  view  of  the  whole  passage 
is  the  one  proposed  by  Calvin,  who  regards  it  as  a  general  threatening  of 
destruction  to  the  enemies  of  Zion,  Edom  being  particularly  mentioned,  as 
an  enemy  of  ancient  Israel  peculiarly  inveterate  and  malignant,  and  thence 
used  to  represent  the  whole  class  of  such  enemies.  Thus  understood,  the 
prophecy  extends  both  to  the  past  and  future,  and  includes  many  particular 
events  to  which  interpreters  have  erroneously  endeavoured  to  restrict  it,  not 
excepting  the  destruction  of  Antichrist,  as  the  greatest  event  of  this  kind 
which  is  foretold  in  prophecy.    Compare  the  note  on  ch.  11:4. 

V.  ) .   Come  near,  ye  nations,  to  hear,  and  ye  peoples,  hearken.    Lowth 
adds  to  me,  on  the  authority  of  a  single  manuscript.     Let  the  earth  hear 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXXIV.  557 

and  its  fulness  (that  which  fills  it,  all  that  it  contains),  the  world  and  all  its 
issues  (or  productions,  all  that  conies  forth  from  it).  This  may  either  be 
explained  with  Calvin  as  an  appeal  to  inanimate  nature,  like  the  one  at  the 
beginning  of  the  book  (ch.  1  :  2),  or  as  an  appeal  to  men,  poetically  repre- 
sented as  the  fruit  of  the  earth,  which  is  the  sense  given  in  the  ancient  ver- 
sions and  adopted  by  Vitringa.  Knobel  supposes  a  climax  or  anticlimax, 
the  Prophet  first  invoking  men  (nations  and  peoples),  then  brutes  (the  ful- 
ness of  the  earth),  and  then  plants  (its  productions).  But  the  sense  thus 
put  upon  the  fulness  of  the  earth  is  altogether  arbitrary.  This  verse  an- 
nounces, as  about  to  be  delivered,  a  prediction  of  great  moment  and  deserv- 
ing the  attention  of  the  whole  world.  Cocceius  understands  by  nations  the 
heathen  and  by  peoples  the  tribes  of  Israel,  a  distinction  which  he  makes 
even  in  the  first  verse  of  the  second  Psalm.  All  other  writers  take  the 
words  as  poetical  equivalents. 

V.  2.  This  verse  assigns  the  reason  for  the  invocation  in  the  one  before 
it.  For  (there  is)  anger  to  Jehovah.  The  English  Version  has,  the  indig- 
nation of  the  Lord  is.  an  idea  which  would  be  otherwise  expressed  in  He- 
brew. The  construction  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  2:  12.  Jehovah  has  anger 
(or  75  angry)  against  all  the  nations.  The  common  version  is  upon,  which 
is  the  primary, meaning  of  the  particle,  and  is  appropriate  in  this  case  as 
suggesting  the  idea  of  infliction.  That  of  hostility  is  of  course  implied,  even 
if  not  expressed.  Vitringa  needlessly  and  arbitrarily  distinguishes  between 
the  nations  mentioned  in  the  first  verse  and  in  this,  upon  the  ground 
that  those  who  were  to  be  destroyed  would  not  be  summoned  to  hear  of 
their  destruction.  But  why  not?  It  is  exactly  like  the  case  of  an  indi- 
vidual convict  hearing  his  sentence  before  its  execution.  Vitringa  also 
makes  D"1^  mean  nations  in  general,  and  tfW  these  nations,  i.  e.  the  ones 
to  be  destroyed.  But  pf*W  hi  is  the  strongest  expression  possible  in  He- 
brew for  all  nations. — And  wrath  (is  to  Jehovah)  against  all  their  host. 
Not  their  armies  in  particular,  as  Clericus  suggests,  but  their  whole  multitude, 
all  that  belong  to  them.  (Compare  the  same  expression  in  Gen.  2:  1.) — 
He  has  doomed  them,  or  devoted  them  irrevocably  to  destruction.  For  the 
peculiar  usage  of  the  Hebrew  verb,  see  the  note  on  ch.  1 1  :  15. — He  has 
given  (i.  e.  appointed  and  abandoned)  them  to  the  slaughter.  The  past 
tense  is  not  a  mere  praeteritum  propheticum,  implying  the  certainty  of  the 
event  although  still  future,  but  describes  the  divine  determination  or  decree 
as  really  and  literally  past. 

V.  3.  And  their  slain  shall  be  cast  out.  The  Hebrew  word  strictly 
means  their  wounded,  and  is  so  translated  in  the  Septuagint  and  some  other 
versions.     But  usage  gives  it  the  specific  sense  of  wounded  mortally,  and 


558  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV. 

for  the  most  part  in  battle.  Cast  out  i.  e.  unburied.  This  suggests  the 
several  ideas  of  contemptuous  neglect,  of  a  multitude  too  vast  to  be  interred, 
and  perhaps  of  survivors  too  few  to  perform  the  duty.  (Compare  ch.  14: 
18-20.)  They  shall  not  lie  unburied  merely  for  a  time,  but  until  they  rot 
upon  the  ground.  And  their  corpses  (or  carcasses) ,  their  stench  shall  go 
up.  The  first  noun  is  construed  as  an  absolute  nominative :  as  to  their 
carcasses,  their  stench  etc.  which  is  equivalent  in  our  idiom  to  the  stench  of 
their  carcasses  shall  go  up.  With  reference  to  the  same  revolting  circum- 
stance, Lucan  calls  a  battle-field  olentes  agros.  (Compare  Amos  4 :  10. 
Joel  2:  20.) — And  mountains  shall  be  melted  with  (or  by)  their  blood,  as 
they  are  sometimes  washed  away  by  rains  or  torrents.  This  cannot  mean 
merely  that  blood  shall  run  down  from  the  hills  (Clericus),  but  must  be 
taken  as  a  strong  poetical  hyperbole  descriptive  of  excessive  carnage. 

V.  4.  And  all  the  host  of  heaven  (or  heavenly  bodies)  shall  consume  away. 
This  verb  is  commonly  applied  to  the  pining  or  consumption  occasioned  by 
disease.  In  Ps.  38:  6  it  means  to  run  as  a  sore,  from  which  analogy  Gese- 
nius  deduces  here  the  sense  of  melting,  and  adopts  Vitringa's  notion  that 
the  stars  are  poetically  likened  to  wax  candles.  Maurer,  with  better  taste, 
supposes  the  obscuration  of  the  heavenly  bodies  to  be  represented  as  a  pining 
away.  The  ideas  of  sickly  lights  and  dying  lights  are  not  unknown  to 
modern  poetry. — And,  the  heavens  shall  be  rolled  up  (or  together)  like  a 
scroll,  i.  e.  like  an  ancient  volume  (yolumen  from  volvo)  or  a  modern  map. 
Grotius  explains  this  as  meaning  that  nothing  should  be  seen  in  the  heavens 
any  more  than  in  a  book  rolled  up  or  closed.  This  idea  Umbreit  carries 
out  by  talking  of  the  sky  as  God's  great  book,  in  which  he  has  written  his 
eternal  name  with  countless  stars.  J.  D.  Michaelis  more  naturally  under- 
stands the  Prophet  as  alluding  to  the  phenomena  of  storms,  in  which  the 
sky  is  first  overcast  and  then  covered  with  clouds,  the  motion  of  which  gives 
it  the  appearance  of  being  rolled  together.  The  best  explanation  seems 
however  to  be  that  proposed  by  PfeifFer  in  his  Dubia  Vexata,  to  wit,  that 
as  God  is  elsewhere  described  as  having  stretched  out  the  heavens  like  a 
curtain,  their  destruction  or  any  total  change  in  their  appearance  would  be 
naturally  represented  as  a  rolling  up  of  the  expanse.  In  like  manner  Hor- 
ace says :  horrida  tempestas  contraxit  coelum.  The  Targum  strangely 
makes  ifcos  mean  according  to  the  book  i.  e.  the  scriptures.  Montanus 
no  less  strangely  makes  it  govern  o^a^n  (sicut  liber  coelorum),  a  construc- 
tion utterly  precluded  by  the  article.  (See  a  similar  mistake  of  Lowth  in 
ch.  17 :  8.) — And  all  their  host  (referring  to  the  heavens)  shall  fade  (or 
rall  away)  like  the  fading  of  a  leaf  from  a  vine.  This  beautiful  comparison 
with  the  decay  of  plants  makes  it  the  more  probable  that  the  preceding 
clause  alludes  to  that  of  animal  life  and  not  to  the  melting  of  wax  or  tallow. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV.  559 


— And  like  a  fading  (leaf)  or  a  withered  (fg)  from  a  fig-tree.  Knobel 
explains  rto  as  a  feminine  collective  put  for  the  plural  masculine,  an  idiom 
of  which  there  are  few  if  any  unambiguous  examples.  As  nbs  is  masculine, 
the  feminine  adjective  may  be  referred  to  a  noun  understood.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
imagines  that  this  clause  describes  the  seeming  motion  of  the  stars  occasioned 
by  a  nocturnal  earthquake.  Grotius  supposes  the  description  of  the  carnage 
to  be  still  continued,  and  the  exhalations  of  the  putrid  corpses  to  be  here 
described  as  veiling  the  heavens  and  producing  those  meteoric  appearances 
called  shooting  stars.  This  extravagant  conceit  is  justly  condemned  by 
Gesenius  as  a  most  infelicitous  conception  of  a  poetic  image,  and  is  certainly 
worse  than  his  own  prosaic  supposition  of  wax  candles.  Such  exhibitions 
may  enable  us  to  estimate  correctly  the  aesthetic  contempt  with  which  some 
writers  speak  of  this  magnificent  passage  as  plainly  belonging  to  a  later  age. 
A  similar  remark  may  be  applied  to  Knobel's  repetition  of  Vitringa's 
indiscreet  suggestion  as  to  the  popular  belief  of  the  Hebrews  respecting  the 
heavens  and  the  heavenly  bodies.  It  would  be  no  less  rational  to  argue 
from  the  foregoing  verse,  that  they  believed  in  streams  of  blood  so  vast  as  to 
dissolve  whole  mountains.  If  the  terms  of  that  verse  are  poetical  hyperbo- 
les, on  what  ground  is  this  to  be  explained  as  a  lesson  in  natural  philosophy  ? 
Another  notion  of  Vitringa's,  equally  unfounded,  although  not  adopted  by 
the  modern  Germans,  is  that  the  terms  of  this  verse  plainly  show  that  the 
prediction  has  respect  to  some  great  body  politic  or  organized  society,  the 
sun  being  the  emblem  of  the  civil  power,  the  moon  of  the  ecclesiastical,  and 
the  stars  of  distinguished  men  in  church  and  state.  The  context  clearly 
shows  that  the  terms  used  are  not  symbolical  but  poetical,  and  that  here,  as 
in  ch.  13:  10,  the  idea,  which  they  are  all  intended  to  convey  is  that  of 
revolution,  of  sudden,  total,  and  appalling  change.  The  imagery  of  the 
passage  has  been  partially  adopted  in  Matt.  24  :  29  and  Rev.  6:13,  neither 
of  which  however  is  to  be  regarded  either  as  a  repetition  or  an  explanation 
of  the  one  before  us. 

V.  5.  There  is  no  need  of  giving  ^3  the  sense  of  yea  (Augusti)  or  of 
explaining  it  as  a  mere  connective  particle  (Knobel),  since  it  may  be  con- 
strued, in  its  proper  sense,  either  with  v.  3  (Hitzig)  or  with  the  whole  of  the 
preceding  description.  All  this  shall  certainly  take  place,  for  my  sword 
(the  speaker  being  God  himself)  is  steeped  (saturated,  soaked)  in  heaven. 
Most  versions,  ancient  and  modern,  take  the  verb  here  in  the  sense  of  being 
drunk  or  intoxicated,  either  with  wrath  or  with  the  blood  of  enemies.  It  is 
very  improbable  however  that  two  different  figures  were  intended  here  and 
in  v.  7,  where  all  agree  that  the  earth  is  described  as  being  soaked  or  satu- 
rated with  blood.  Koppe  proposes  to  read  ruft-vp  sharpened,  after  the  ana- 
logy of  Ezek.  21 :  33.     The  same  sense  had  long  before  been  put  upon 


560  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXIV. 

the  common  text  by  Clericus,  who  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  wetting  of 
the  grindstone  or  the  blade  in  grinding.  The  Targum  has  revealed,  on  the 
authority  of  which  loose  paraphrase  Lowth  reads  made  bare,  adding  with 
great  naivete  in  his  note,  whatever  reading,  different  1  presume  from  the 
present,  he  might  find  in  his  copy,  I  follow  the  sense  which  he  has  given  of 
it.  This  implies  that  it  is  not  even  necessary  to  know  what  a  reading  is 
before  it  is  allowed  to  supersede  the  common  text.  The  phrase  in  heaven 
has  been  variously  explained.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understand  it  as 
expressing  the  certainty  of  the  event  (as  firm  or  sure  as  the  heavens)  ; 
others  as  descriptive  of  the  great  men  who  were  to  be  destroyed.  Gill  says 
it  may  denote  the  whole  Roman  papal  jurisdiction,  and  Henderson,  who 
rejects  all  allusion  to  Rome,  explains  it  to  mean  the  Idumean  heaven  or  the 
ruling  power  in  Kdom.  Gesenius  supposes  the  sword  to  be  here  described 
as  drunk  with  wrath  in  heaven  before  it  is  drunk  with  blood  on  earth  ; 
Ewald,  as  dropping  blood  in  heaven  as  if  by  anticipation  (wie  zum 
voraus).  The  best  explanation  is  that  of  Calvin,  who  refers  the  expression 
to  the  divine  determination  and  foreknowledge.  In  the  sight  of  God  the 
sword,  although  not  yet  actually  used,  was  already  dripping  blood.  The 
sword  is  mentioned,  neither  because  commonly  employed  in  executions 
(Barnes),  nor  in  the  sense  of  a  butcher's  knife  (Vitringa),  but  as  a  natural 
and  common  though  poetical  expression  for  any  instrument  of  vengeance. 
Knobel  is  singular  in  understanding  this  clause  as  referring  to  the  slaughter 
of  the  Babylonians  already  past,  and  now  to  be  succeeded  by  that  of  the 
Edomites.  Behold,  upon  Edom  it  shall  come  down.  Some  translate  the 
future  as  a  present,  but  therejs  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the 
proper  sense.  The  Jewish  tradition  is  that  Edom  in  the  prophecies  means 
Rome.  For  this  opinion  Abarbenel  endeavours  to  secure  a  historical  founda- 
tion by  making  the  Romans  actual  descendants  of  Esau.  Vitringa  justly 
denounces  this  as  egregious  trifling,  but  adopts  the  same  hypothesis,  only 
applying  the  name  to  Pagan  and  Papal  Rome.  At  the  same  time,  he  ap- 
pears unwilling  to  abandon  altogether  its  application  to  the  Jews  themselves. 
Now  the  only  thing  common  to  these  three  distinct  subjects  is  their  malig- 
nant hatred  of  God's  people.  This  may  serve,  therefore,  to  confirm  Calvin's 
doctrine,  that  the  name  is  here  applied  to  the  inveterate  enemies  of  the 
church  at  large,  and  not  to  any  one  of  them  exclusively.  Henderson,  in 
avoiding  Vitringa's  error,  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  confining  the  pre- 
diction to  the  literal  and  ancient  Edom.  Even  the  German  critics  grant 
that  Edom  is  here  mentioned  as  a  representative.  The  same  thing  is  clear 
from  the  whole  complexion  of  this  prophecy  and  from  the  analogy  of  others 
like  it.  The  strength  of  the  expressions  cannot  be  explained  by  the  gra- 
tuitous assertion  that  it  was  merely  adequate  to  meet  the  expectations  of  a 
patriotic  Jew  in  reference  to  the  infliction  of  divine  judgment  on  those  who 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV.  561 

had  been  the  ancient  and  most  inveterate  enemies  of  his  country.  On  the 
other  hand,  they  are  sufficiently  accounted  for,  by  the  supposition  that  the 
passage  is  a  prediction  of  the  downfall  not  of  Edom  only  but  of  others  like 
him.  The  fulfilment  of  these  threatenings  cannot  be  traced  in  the  history 
of  ancient  Edom.  They  ceased  to  be  a  people  not  by  extirpation  but  by 
incorporation  with  the  Jews.  The  name  Idumea,  as  employed  by  Josephus, 
includes  a  large  part  of  Judea.  The  Herods,  the  last  royal  family  of  Judah, 
were  of  Idumean  origin. — And  upon  the  people  of  my  curse  or  doom  i.e. 
the  people  whom  I  have  doomed  to  destruction.  (See  v.  2.)  This  is  not 
an  extension  of  the  threatening  against  Edom  to  other  nations  (Junius), 
but  a  repetition  of  it  in  a  different  form.  B&B&fe  is  not  an  adverbial  phrase 
meaning  justly,  but  a  declaration  of  the  end  for  which  the  sword  was  to 
come  down,  viz.  for  judgment  i.  e.  to  execute  justice  upon  Edom. 

V.  6.  A  sword  (is)  to  Jehovah  (or  Jehovah  has  a  sword)  ;  it  is  full  of 
blood.  The  genitive  construction  (the  sivord  of  Jehovah),  although  not 
ungrammatical,  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity. — It  is  smeared  with 
fat.  The  allusion  is  not  to  the  fatty  part  of  the  blood  or  to  the  fat  com- 
bined with  it  (Gesenius),  but  to  fat  and  blood  as  the  animal  substances 
offered  in  sacrifice. —  With  the  blood  of  lambs  and  goats,  mentioned  as  well- 
known  sacrificial  animals,  with  the  fat  of  the  kidneys  (or  the  kidney-fat)  of 
rams,  mentioned  either  as  remarkable  for  fatness  or  as  a  parallel  expression 
to  the  foregoing  clause. — For  there  is  to  Jehovah  (or  Jehovah  has)  a  sacri- 
fice in  Bozrah  and  a  great  slaughter  in  the  land  of  Edom.  nn;  is  otherwise 
explained  to  mean  a  victim  (Vulgate),  or  the  preparation  for  a  feast  (Coc- 
ceius).  Bozrah  was  an  ancient  city  of  Edom.  Gesenius  in  his  Commen- 
tary identifies  it  with  Bostra  in  Auranitis ;  but  in  his  Thesaurus  he  agrees 
with  Raumer  and  Hitzig  in  making  it  the  same  with  the  modern  Busaireh, 
a  village  and  castle  in  Arabia  Petraea  south-east  of  the  Dead  Sea.  (See 
Robinson's  Palestine,  II.  p.  570.)  Cocceius  thinks  Jerusalem  is  here  called 
Bozrah  as  being  a  stronghold  of  thieves  and  robbers.  Vitringa  applies  it 
to  Rome,  which  he  derives  from  iwi  high.  Hitzig  applies  this  verse  to 
the  literal  slaughter  of  the  Edomitish  flocks  and  herds,  which  seems  incon- 
sistent with  the  next  verse. 

V.  7.  And  unicorns  shall  come  down  with  them,  and  bullocks  with  bulls. 
And  their  land  shall  be  soaked  (or  drenched)  with  blood,  and  their  dust 
with  fat  shall  be  fattened.  The  ancient  versions,  with  great  unanimity  and 
uniformity,  explain  ttfi  as  meaning  the  unicorn.  This  animal  has  been 
commonly  regarded  as  fabulous  in  modern  times  ;  but  of  late  some  traces  of 
it  have  been  found  in  Thibet  and  other  parts  of  Asia.  But  even  supposing 
it  to  be  a  real  animal,  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  ever  common 

36 


562  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV. 


in  the  Holy  Land,  as  the  cm  would  seem  to  have  been  from  the  frequency 
with  which  it  is  mentioned.  The  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  word  by 
Aquila  and  Saadias,  as  meaning  the  rhinoceros,  may  be  considered  as 
exploded  by  Bochart.  The  modern  writers  are  divided  between  a  certain 
species  of  gazelle  or  antelope  and  the  wild  buffalo  of  Palestine  and  Egypt. 
The  name  may  here  be  used  either  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  ox,  or  to 
suggest  that  wild  as  well  as  tame  beasts  should  be  included  in  the  threatened 
slaughter.  Some  understand  the  term  as  denoting  potent  and  malignant 
enemies.  Grotius  gives  a  distinctive  meaning  also  to  the  species  mentioned 
in  the  foregoing  verse,  the  lambs  being  the  common  people,  the  goats  the 
priests,  and  the  fat  rams  the  men  of  wealth.  This  mode  of  exposition  is  at 
variance  with  the  very  nature  of  figurative  language.  For  die  an  in  this 
verse  some  of  the  old  Jews  read  D-ioin  Romans.  Dust  here  denotes  dry 
soil,  which  is  said  to  be  enriched  by  the  bodies  of  the  slain.  So  Virgil  says 
that  Roman  blood  had  twice  enriched  the  soil  of  Macedonia.  The  field  of 
Waterloo  (says  Barnes)  has  thus  been  celebrated,  since  the  great  battle  there, 
for  producing  rank  and  luxuriant  harvests.  To  come  down  in  the  first  clause 
is  by  some  explained  as  meaning  to  come  down  to  the  slaughter  (Jer.  50 : 
27.  51 :  40)  ;  by  others  to  fall  or  sink  under  the  fatal  stroke  (Zech.  11:  2). 

V.  8.  For  {there  is)  a  day  of  vengeance  to  Jehovah,  a  year  of  recom- 
penses for  the  cause  of  Zion,  i.  e.  to  maintain  her  cause.  Some  have  taken 
this  in  an  unfavourable  sense  as  meaning  to  contend  with  Zion.  Cocceius 
and  Umbreit  regard  day  and  year  as  a  climax,  but  most  writers  as  equiva- 
lent indefinite  expressions.  This  verse  connects  the  judgments  threatened 
against  Edom  with  the  cause  of  Zion  or  the  church  of  God.  On  the  con- 
struction and  the  meaning  of  the  first  words  of  the  sentence,  compare  ch. 
2:  12. 

V.  9-  And  her  streams  (those  of  Idumea  or  the  land  of  Edom)  shall  be 
turned  to  pitch,  and  her  dust  to  brimstone,  and  her  land  shall  become  burn- 
ing pitch.  This  verse,  as  Calvin  well  observes,  announces  nothing  new, 
but  repeats  the  same  prediction  under  other  figures,  borrowed  from  the  over- 
throw of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  which  throughout  the  Bible  are  set  forth 
for  an  example,  suffering  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire  (Jude  7).  To  the 
fire  and  brimstone  there  mentioned,  pitch  or  bitumen  is  added,  as  Hende- 
werk  and  Knobel  suppose,  because  the  soil  of  Idumea,  lying  adjacent  to 
the  Dead  Sea,  is  bituminous  and  abounds  in  veins  or  springs  of  naphtha. 
According  to  Sanctius,  pitch  is  mentioned  as  a  substance  easily  kindled  and 
burning  long,  mbns  neither  means  her  valleys  (Septuagint)  nor  her  torrents 
(Lowth),  but  her  streams  in  general,  as  distinguished  from  her  dust  or  dry 
ground,  both  being  included  in  the  general  term  land  which  occurs  in  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV.  563 

last  clause  (Hitzig).  According  to  Knobel,  the  suffix  in  hsr^a  still  refers  to 
Idumea  and  the  noun  means  surface.  Grotius  applies  this  description  to 
the  burning  of  the  Idumean  cities.  Clericus  explains  the  first  clause  as 
meaning  that  their  streams  should  be  as  turbid  as  if  turned  to  pitch.  Barnes 
correctly  understands  it  as  expressing  in  the  strongest  terms  the  idea  of  utter 
and  permanent  destruction,  as  complete  and  terrible  as  if  the  streams  were 
turned  to  pitch.  The  old  editions  of  the  Chaldee  paraphrase  read  here  the 
streams  of  Rome  etc.  According  to  the  Talmud,  Rome  was  founded  on 
the  day  that  Jeroboam  set  up  the  golden  calf,  and  is  to  be  destroyed  like 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  Upon  this  tradition  (which  is  given  at  length  in 
Buxtorf  's  Talmudical  Lexicon  under  the  word  aai'i)  Gill  seizes  with  avidity, 
so  far  as  it  is  suited  to  his  purpose,  and  applies  it  to  the  future  destruction  of 
Rome  by  fire,  as  predicted  in  Rev.  17:  16.  18:  8.  Vitringa  also  thinks  it 
not  impossible  that  even  this  verse  may  be  literally  verified  in  the  sulphure- 
ous soil  of  Latium  and  Campania.  He  seems  indeed  to  have  regarded  it  as 
an  event  likely  to  happen  in  his  own  day,  and  cites  with  great  solemnity  the 
similar  anticipations  of  Jerome  Savonarola,  as  recorded  by  Philip  de  Comines, 
and  the  prophecy  found,  according  to  Matthew  of  Paris,  in  the  bed-room  of 
Gregory  IX.  So  little  does  the  failure  of  these  earlier  forebodings  appear 
to  have  taught  him  their  groundless  and  unprofitable  nature !  At  the  same 
time  he  appears  to  allow  ample  space  for  the  fulfilment  by  referring  to  the 
great  fire  under  Nero  as  a  prelude  to  the  final  conflagration. 

V.  10.  Day  and  night  it  shall  not  be  quenched ;  forever  shall  its  smoke 
go  up ;  from  generation  to  generation  shall  it  lie  waste,  for  ever  and  ever, 
there  shall  be  no  one  passing  through  it.  The  remarkable  gradation  and 
accumulation  of  terms  denoting  perpetuity  can  scarcely  be  expressed  in  a 
translation.  This  is  especially  the  case  with  the  last  and  highest  of  the 
series,  which  Lowth  renders  to  everlasting  ages,  and  Henderson  to  all  per- 
petuity, neither  of  which  is  stronger  than  the  common  version  for  ever 
and  ever,  or  approaches  much  nearer  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  Hebrew 
phrase,  to  perpetuity  of  perpetuities.  The  original  form  of  expression, 
though  not  the  exact  sense  of  the  words,  is  retained  by  Theodotion,  sig 
Zapata  saxdrcov.  Grotius's  characteristic  explanation  is  in  these  words :  id 
e$t,  diu.  Lowth's  disposition  to  improve  the  common  version  by  substi- 
tuting Latin  for  Saxon  words  is  exemplified  in  this  verse,  where  he  changes 
waste  and  quenched  into  desert  and  extinguished.  Grotius  supposes  an  al- 
lusion to  the  long-continued  smoking  of  burnt  cities,  and  quotes  parallels 
from  Virgil  and  Seneca.  A  much  more  striking  parallel  is  found  in  the 
statement  (Gen.  19:  28),  that  when  Abraham  looked  toward  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  the  smoke  of  the  country  went  up  as  the  smoke  of  a  furnace. 
These  sublime  and  fearful  images  are  copied  in   the  book  of  Revelation 


564  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV. 


(14:  10,  11),  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  copy,  though  inspired  and 
prophetic,  was  intended  to  determine  the  sense  of  the  original.  Rosenmul- 
ler  and  Knobel  understand  the  last  words  as  meaning  that  no  one  shall  go 
to  it  or  pass  into  it,  but  Gesenius  and  Ewald  with  the  older  writers,  that  no 
one  shall  pass  through  or  over  it,  implying  that  it  shall  not  be  a  thorough- 
fare for  caravans  or  single  travellers.  Keith,  in  his  Evidence  of  Pro- 
phecy, has  collected  some  remarkable  illustrations  of  this  passage  from  the 
incidental  statements  of  modern  travellers  with  respect  to  what  was  once 
the  land  of  Edom.  Thus  Volney  speaks  of  thirty  deserted  towns  within 
three  days'  journey ;  Seetzen,  of  a  wide  tract  utterly  without  a  place  of 
habitation,  and  of  his  own  route  through  it  as  one  never  before  attempted ; 
Burckhardt,  of  the  passage  as  declared  by  the  people  of  the  nearest  inhabited 
districts  to  be  impossible,  in  accordance  with  which  notion  he  was  unable  to 
procure  guides  at  any  price.  These  are  striking  coincidences,  and  as  illustra 
tions  of  the  prophecy  important,  but  are  not  to  be  insisted  on  as  constituting 
its  direct  fulfilment,  for  in  that  case  the  passage  of  these  very  travellers 
through  the  country  would  falsify  the  prediction  which  they  are  cited  to 
confirm.  The  truth  of  the  prophecy  in  this  clause  is  really  no  more  sus- 
pended on  such  facts,  than  that  of  the  first  clause  and  of  the  preceding  verse 
upon  the  actual  existence  of  bituminous  streams  and  a  sulphureous  soil 
throughout  the  ancient  Idumea.  The  whole  is  a  magnificent  prophetic  pic- 
ture, the  fidelity  of  which,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  ancient  Edom,  is  notoriously 
attested  by  its  desolation  for  a  course  of  ages.  In  this  verse  Hitzig  repre- 
sents the  writer  as  attaining  his  highest  point  of  bitterness  against  the  Edom- 
ites ;  and  Knobel,  in  a  kindred  spirit,  says  that  the  repeated  threatening  of 
perpetual  desolation,  while  it  makes  the  prediction  more  impressive,  shows 
great  spite  (yerrath  grossen  Hass),  an  expression  far  more  applicable  to  the 
comment  than  the  text,  which  is  as  little  open  to  the  charge  of  malice  as 
the  sentence  which  a  judge  pronounces  on  a  convict. 

V.  11.  Then  shall  possess  it  (as  a  heritage)  the  pelican  and  porcupine, 
the  crane  and  crow  shall  dwell  in  it.  And  he  (or  one)  shall  stretch  upon  it 
the  line  of  confusion  and  the  stones  of  emptiness.  Having  declared  that 
man  should  no  longer  pass  through  it,  he  now  explains  who  shall  be  its  inha- 
bitants. The  first  verb  is  rendered  by  Cocceius,  shall  inherit;  by  Junius  stiff 
more  fully,  shall  possess  by  hereditary  right ;  but  by  Gesenius  and  most  later 
writers,  shall  possess,  which  though  correct  is  scarcely  adequate,  as  the  origi- 
nal word  could  not  fail  to  suggest  to  a  Hebrew  reader  the  idea  of  succession. 
These  animals  should  not  only  occupy  the  land,  but  occupy  it  as  the  suc- 
cessors and  to  the  exclusion  of  mankind.  The  n«p  is  no  doubt  the  pelican, 
as  the  etymology  of  the  name  (from  Mp  to  vomit)  agrees  with  the  habits  of 
that  bird,  and  the  ancient  versions  so  explain  it.    In  this  place,  it  is  true,  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIY.  565 

Septuagint  has  not  nelexav,  as  Henderson  quotes  it,  but  the  general  term 
ogvea,  and  the  Vulgate  not  pelican  but  onocrotalus.  The  next  word  has 
been  translated  owl  (Calvin)  and  bittern  (English  Version),  but  is  now- 
agreed  to  mean  the  porcupine  or  hedgehog,  as  explained  in  the  Septuagint 
Qlivoi).  The  next  word  is  now  understood  to  denote  not  an  owl  (Bochart), 
but  a  heron  or  crane ;  according  to  the  Septuagint,  the  ibis  or  Egyptian 
heron.  The  essential  idea,  as  Calvin  observes,  is  that  of  wild  and  solitary 
animals.  (Compare  ch.  13  :  21,  22.  14:  23.  Rev.  18:  2.)  Here  again  a 
remarkable  coincidence  is  furnished  by  the  statements  of  travellers  with 
respect  to  the  number  of  wild  birds  in  Edom.  Mangles,  while  at  Petra, 
describes  the  screaming  of  the  eagles,  hawks,  and  owls,  seemingly  annoyed 
at  any  one  approaching  their  lonely  habitation.  Burckhardt  speaks  of 
Tafyle  as  frequented  by  an  immense  number  of  crows  and  of  the  birds 
called  katta,  which  fly  in  such  large  flocks  that  the  boys  often  kill  two  or 
three  at  a  time  merely  by  throwing  a  stick  among  them.  In  this  last  case 
the  coincidence  is  verbal  also,  as  the  katta  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to 
the  nap.  The  apparent  inconsistency  between  this  clause  and  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  country  in  the  verse  before  it  only  shows  that  neither  can  be 
strictly  taken,  but  that  both  are  metaphorical  predictions  of  entire  desola- 
tion. In  the  next  clause  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  an  entire  change  of 
figure.  The  verb  may  be  construed  either  with  Jehovah  understood  (Kim- 
chi),  or  indefinitely,  as  by -Junius  (quisquis  conabitur)  and  Augusti  (man 
zieht),  which  is  really  equivalent  to  the  passive  form  adopted  in  the  Vulgate 
(extendetur).  In  the  use  of  the  words  inn  and  1H3,  there  may  be  a  distinct 
allusion  to  Gen.  1:2,  as  there  is  in  Jer.  4 :  23.  The  line  meant  is  a 
measuring  line,  mentioned  elsewhere  not  only  in  connexion  with  buildino- 
(Zech.  1 :  16),  but  also  with  destroying  (2  Kings  21 :  13).  The  stones 
meant  are  not  the  black  flints  with  which  the  soil  of  ancient  Edom  is  pro- 
fusely covered  (Burckhardt),  but  stones  used  for  weights  (Deut.  25:  13. 
Prov.  16 :  11),  and  here  for  plumb-line  or  plummet.  This  sense,  which  is 
given  in  the  Vulgate  (perpendiculum) ,  is  required  by  the  parallelism  and 
assumed  by  all  interpreters.  The  same  figure  is  employed  by  Amos  (7  : 
7-9)  to  denote  a  moral  test  or  standard,  but  in  this  case  as  a  symbol  of  de- 
struction. The  plummet  is  here  mentioned,  not  because  actually  used  in 
the  taking  down  of  buildings  (Henderson),  but  as  a  parallel  to  line  (Hitzig), 
both  together  expressing  the  idea  of  exact  and  careful  measurement.  The 
sense  of  the  whole  metaphor  may  then  be  either  that  God  has  laid  this  work 
out  for  himself  and  will  perform  it  (Barnes),  or  that  in  destroying  Edom  he 
will  act  with  equity  and  justice  (Gill),  or  that  even  in  destroying  he  will 
proceed  deliberately  and  by  rule  (Knobel),  which  last  sense  is  well  expressed 
in  Rosenmiiller's  paraphrase  (ad  mensuram  vastabitur,  ad  regulam  depopu- 
labitur).     Ewald  seems  to  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the  land 


tt$  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXIV. 

should  be  meted  out  to  new  inhabitants,  but  that  these  should  be  only  Waste 
and  Chaos.  Calvin  and  others  make  it  mean  that  all  attempts  at  restoration 
should  be  vain,  the  line  and  plummet  of  the  builder  should  only  serve  as 
measures  of  desolation.  According  to  Clericus,  the  sense  is  that  there  should 
be  nothing  to  prevent  one  from  measuring  the  ruins.  The  Septuagint  curi- 
ously assimilates  the  clauses  by  translating  this  :  ass-centaurs  shall  inhabit  it. 

V.  12.  Her  caves  and  there  is  no  one  there  (i.  e.  her  uninhabited  or 
empty  caves)  they  will  (still)  call  a  kingdom,  and  all  her  chiefs  will  be 
cessation  (i.  e.  cease  to  be).  Lowth  reads  rrn^na  or  rr*nn  bs,  connects 
it  with  the  preceding  verse  (for  which  division  of  the  text  he  cites  the  au- 
thority of  the  Peshito),  and  translates  the  last  words  of  that  verse  as  follows  : 
and  the  plummet  of  emptiness  over  her  scorched  plains.  Such  a  sense  is 
dearly  purchased  by  an  arbitrary  change  of  text  and  the  introduction  of  a 
word  of  rare  occurrence,  not  to  say  of  doubtful  meaning.  Not  content  with 
this,  however,  he  reads  Dtt)  for  du3,  gives  ao]3  the  sense  which  he  says  it  has 
in  Prov.  20:  6,  and  translates  the  first  clause:  no  more  shall  they  boast  the 
renown  of  the  kingdom !  Most  other  writers  take  iwn  in  the  sense  given 
to  it  by  the  Septuagint  (ao%ovTeg)  and  Vulgate  (nobiles).  Montanus  renders 
it  heroes.  Gesenius  retains  the  common  meaning  but  derives  it  (on  the 
strength  of  an  Arabic  analogy)  from  the  primary  idea  of  free-born.  It  is 
also  commonly  agreed  since  Vitringa,  that  this  first  word  should  be  construed 
as  a  nominative  absolute  (as  to  her  nobles),  and  the  first  verb  as  indefinite. 
That  verb  has  been  variously  explained  here  as  meaning  to  say  (Augusti), 
to  cry  (French  Version),  to  lament  (Castalio),  to  propose  (DeDieu),  to 
name  (Forerius),  to  recall  (Grotius),  to  proclaim  (Cocceius),  and  to  call  in 
the  sense  of  nominating  or  appointing  (Vatablus).  No  less  various  are  the 
senses  put  upon  the  whole  clause,  among  which  however  three  may  be  par- 
ticularly mentioned.  According  to  the  first,  it  means  that  there  shall  be 
none  to  proclaim  the  kingdom  (Ewald)  or  to  call  a  king  (Munster).  Ac- 
cording to  the  second,  it  means  that  there  shall  be  no  kingdom.  This  idea 
is  variously  expressed  and  combined  so  as  to  mean  that  their  princes  will 
be  princes  without  land  (Luther),  or  that  they  will  lament  for  the  destruction 
of  the  kingdom  (Castalio),  or  will  cry  that  it  is  at  an  end  (French  Version), 
or  will  call  for  its  restoration  (DeDieu)  ;  to  which  may  be  added  Augustus 
explanation,  that  men  will  say  of  her  princes,  they  have  no  kingdom !  and 
Grotius's,  that  they  will  call  to  mind  (memoria  recolent)  their  ancient  royal 
race  now  extinct,  in  favour  of  which  he  appeals  to  the  Targum,  which  is 
here  of  very  doubtful  meaning.  A  third  sense,  preferred  by  most  of  the 
late  writers,  is  that  there  shall  be  no  one  whom  they  can  call  to  the  king- 
dom. The  same  elliptical  construction  is  supposed  to  occur  in  Deut.  33 : 
19.     This  great  variety  of  explanations,  and  the  harshness  of  construction 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV.  567 


with  which  most  of  them  are  chargeable,  may  serve  as  an  excuse  for  the 
suggestion  of  a  new  one,  not  as  certainly  correct,  but  as  possibly  entitled  to 
consideration.  All  the  interpretations  which  have  been  cited  coincide  in  giv- 
ing to  D'nn  the  sense  of  nobles,  which  it  certainly  has  in  several  places.  (See 
1  Kings  21 :  8,  11.  Neh.  2:  16.  4  :  13.)  But  in  several  others,  it  no  less 
certainly  means  holes  or  caves.  (See  1  Sam.  14:  11.  Job  30:  6.  Nah.  2: 
13.)  Now  it  is  matter  of  history,  not  only  that  Edom  was  full  of  caverns, 
but  that  these  were  inhabited,  and  that  the  aboriginal  inhabitants,  expelled 
by  Esau,  were  expressly  called  Horites  (B*n'n)  as  being  troglodytes  or  inha- 
bitants of  caverns  (Gen.  14:  6,  36  :  20.  Deut.  2:  12,  22).  This  being 
the  case,  the  entire  depopulation  of  the  country,  and  especially  the  destruc- 
tion of  its  princes,  might  be  naturally  and  poetically  expressed  by  saying 
that  the  kingdom  of  Edom  should  be  thenceforth  a  kingdom  of  deserted 
caverns.  How  appropriate  such  a  description  would  be  to  the  actual  con- 
dition of  the  country,  and  particularly  to  its  ancient  capital,  may  be  seen 
from  Robinson's  account  of  Petra  (Palestine,  II.  pp.  514-537).  The  sup- 
posed parallelism  between  WFWi  and  irniD,  which  Henderson  urges  against 
Lowth's  absurd  emendation  of  the  text,  can  have  little  weight  in  a  case 
where  the  construction  is  at  best  so  difficult.  It  is  proper  to  add  that  this 
interpretation  was  suggested  by  the  allusion  to  the  Horites  which  Hendewerk 
assumes,  although  he  gives  W*iti  the  sense  of  nobles  with  the  great  mass  of 
interpreters.  Gesenius  infers  from  his  own  interpretation  of  this  clause,  that 
the  kingdom  of  Edom  was  elective,  and  Hitzig  adds  that  they  sometimes 
called  a  king  from  foreign  parts,  of  which  he  finds  an  instance  in  Gen.  35 : 
37  ;  but  Hendewerk  objects  that  on  the  same  grounds,  Isaiah  3  :  6,  7Vould 
prove  Judah  to  have  been  an  elective  monarchy.  Gill  of  course  applies  this 
verse  to  the  kingdom  of  the  beast  (Rev.  16  :  10)  and  JrnttJ  to  the  cardinals. 

V.  13.  And  her  palaces  (or  in  her  palaces)  shall  come  up  thorns,  net- 
tles and  brambles  in  her  fortresses.  The  natural  consequence  of  her  de- 
population. Here,  as  in  ch.  5 :  6,  Cocceius  and  Ewald  construe  the  verb 
with  the  noun  of  place  (increscent  spinis)  ;  but  Gesenius,  who  adopts  the 
same  construction  in  the  other  case,  rejects  it  here,  where  it  is  much  mol& 
natural,  as  it  precludes  the  necessity  of  supplying  a  preposition.  In  the 
•next  clause,  Ewald  supplies  are  ;  but  the  preposition  before  fortresses  makes 
the  other  construction  the  more  probable.  Grotius  quotes  a  beautiful  par- 
allel from  Virgil.  Carduus  et  spinis  surgit  paliurus  acutis.  The  word 
paliurus  is  itself  used  in  the  Vulgate  version  of  this  sentence.  In  rmsnan 
Gill  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  name  Bozrah.  Grotius  explains  the  phrase 
to  mean  within  the  limits  of  her  ancient  walls.  The  situation  here  described 
would  of  course  be  the  resort  of  wild  and  solitary  animals.  And  she  shall 
be  a  home  of  wolves.     The  Septuagint  has  sirens  and  the  Vulgate  dragons, 


568  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV. 

which  is  retained  in  most  of  the  old  versions.  Gill,  who  refers  it  all  to 
Rome  directly,  understands  this  to  mean  that  as  she  had  been  the  abode  of 
figurative  dragons,  i.  e.  of  the  old  dragon,  the  devil  and  the  beast,  with  their 
creatures,  popes  and  cardinals,  so  now  she  shall  be  occupied  by  literal 
dragons,  i.  e.  monsters  of  the  wilderness.  Gesenius  and  Ewald  render  fi^sn 
jackals ,  but  Henderson's  version  wolves  is  more  expressive,  and  the  exact 
species  meant  is  both  dubious  and  unimportant.  A  court  (or  grass-plot) 
for  ostriches.  Gesenius  explains  "vsri  as  an  orthographical  variation  for 
i*n  a  court  or  enclosure.  Hitzig  takes  it  in  its  usual  sense  of  grass.  In 
like  manner  it  had  been  explained  as  meaning  grass  or  pasture  long  before 
by  Luther  (Weide)  and  Cocceius  (grameri).  The  general  sense,  in  either 
case,  is  that  of  an  enclosed  and  appropriated  spot,  a  play-ground  or  a  dwell- 
ing-place. The  last  phrase  is  rendered  by  Augusti,  daughters  of  howling. 
It  is  now  understood  to  mean  not  owls  but  female  ostriches.  (See  the  note 
onch.  13:  21.) 

V.  14.  And  wild  (or  desert)  creatures  shall  (there)  meet  with  howling 
creatures.     The  verb  sometimes  means  to  meet  or  encounter  in  the  sense  of 
attacking  (Ex.  4:  24.     Hos.  13:  8)  ;  but  here  it  seems  to  have  the  gen- 
eral sense  of  falling  in  with.     These  lonely  creatures,  as  they  traverse  Idu- 
mea,  shall  encounter  none  but  creatures  like  themselves.     Gesenius  and 
Ewald  follow  Bochart  in   explaining  ti^x  to  mean  wild-cats.     Lowth  has 
jackals.     Most  other  writers,  with  greater  probability,  take  it  in  the  general 
sense  of  those  inhabiting  the  wilderness.     (Compare   the  note  on  ch.  13  : 
21.)  *In  like  manner  D"1"'!*  may  be  understood,  according  to  its  etymology,  as 
signifying  howlers,  i.  e.  howling  animals.     This  is  less  arbitrary,  and  at  the 
same  time  better  suited  to  the  context,  than  the  explanation  of  the  words 
as  names  of  particular  species.     The  principal  specific  meanings  put  upon 
o^tf  are  those  of  vultures  (Luther),  thoes  (Bochart),  mountain-cats  (Lowth), 
wild-cats   (Grotius),  wild  dogs   (Gesenius),  and   wolves  (Ewald).     Hen- 
dewerk   prefers  the  more  general  meaning  beasts  of  prey  (Raubthiere),  for 
which  there   seems  to  be  no  sufficient  ground    in    etymology.      Augusti 
Retains  both  Hebrew  words  (Zihim  and  Ijim).     Castalio  has  Sylvani  and 
Faunis.     Next  to  the  explanation  first  proposed,  the  most  probable  is  that 
given  by  Cocceius  and  the  English  Version,  wild  beasts  of  the  desert  and 
wild  beasts  of  the  island.     The  antithesis  might  then  be  that  between  the 
animals  inhabiting  dry  places  and  those  frequenting  marshes  or  the  banks  of 
streams  (according  to  the  wide  sense  of  the   Hebrew  *K,  explained  in  the 
note  on  ch'.  20:  6),  implying  either  the  existence  of  such  spots  in  Idumea, 
or  that  the  whole  description   is  to  be  tropically  understood.     By  the  wild 
beast  of  the  desert  Cocceius  understands  the  Saracens   and  Turks,  and  by 
the  wild  beasts  of  the  island  the  Crusaders.     In  the  words  fi^s  and  d^k 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV.  569 

there  is  a  paronomasia  but  not  a  pun  (Barnes).  A  pun  is  the  use  of  one 
word  in  two  senses.  A  paronomasia  is  the  likeness  of  two  different  words 
in  form  or  sound.  And  the  shaggy  monster  shall  call  to  his  fellow.  Hit- 
zig  and  Ewald  give  sopi  the  sense  of  meeting,  as  a  parallel  to  "poMs,  and 
suppose  the  Kal  to  be  here  construed  as  the  Niphal  is  in  Ex.  3 :  18.  But 
as  the  Kal  itself  never  means  to  meet,  excepting  in  a  figurative  application, 
and  as  the  other  explanation  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  and  adds  variety 
to  the  description,  it  is  better  to  explain  it  as  most  writers  have  done  since 
the  Septuagint  version  (jporjaovtai).  For  the  true  sense  of  "PSia,  see  the 
extended  comment  on  the  plural  form  as  it  occurs  in  ch.  13  :  21.  Ewald, 
who  has  satyrs  there,  has  he-goat  in  the  case  before  lis ;  and  Hen- 
derson, who  has  wild  goats  there,  has  here  the  shaggy  he-goat.  Other 
writers  still  give  the  word,  as  in  the  former  case,  the  sense  of  a  hirciform 
spectre  (Bochart),  field-spirit  (Augusti),  field-devil  (Luther),  wood-devil 
(J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Gesenius),  and  the  Dutch  Version  makes  it  flatly  mean 
de  duyvel.  Amidst  these  various  and  fanciful  interpretations,  the  most  con- 
sistent with  itself  and  with  the  etymology  is  still  that  of  the  Vulgate  (pilosus). 
This  is  preferable  even  to  that  given  by  Henderson  and  Ewald,  on  the 
ground  that  it  corresponds  better  with  the  general  descriptive  meaning 
which,  as  we  have  seen  above,  most  probably  belongs  to  the  words  d^x  and 
ffw*  in  the  preceding  clause.  If  that  clause  speaks  of  wild  and  howling 
beasts,  and  not  of  any  one  class  exclusively,  it  is  more  natural  that  this 
should  speak  of  shaggy  monsters  generally  than  of  goats.  Hendewerk's 
conjecture,  that  the  Prophet  here  alludes  to  Mount  Seir  (wid),  is  not  so 
felicitous  as  that  respecting  the  allusion  to  the  Horites  in  v.  12.  Only  there 
reposes  the  night-monster  and  finds  for  herself  a  resting-place.  y*9  which 
the  older  writers  render  quinimo  (Vitringa),  certe  (Cocceius),  etc.  is  properly 
a  particle  of  limitation  meaning  only.  The  latest  writers  connect  it  with  D©. 
as  meaning  only  there  (Gesenius),  or  with  the  verb  as  meaning  only  rest 
(DeWette),  or  with  n-^b  as  meaning  nonnisi  spectra  nocturna  (Maurer). 
The  word  nr»V*?>,  which  occurs  only  here,  has  experienced  very  much  the 
same  fate  with  TOM  In  itself  it  means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  noctur- 
nal, and  would  seem  to  be  applicable  either  to  an  animal  or  to  any  other 
object  peculiarly  belonging  to  the  night.  The  Vulgate  renders  it  by  lamia, 
a  word  used  very  much  like  the  English  witch,  but  derived  from  the  name 
of  a  Libyan  queen,  who  having  lost  her  child  was  said  to  prey  upon  the 
children  of  others.  With  this  may  be  connected  another  Roman  super- 
stition, that  of  the  strix  or  varnpyre,  which  sucked  the  blood  of  children  in 
the  cradle.  These  superstitions  were  adopted  by  the  later  Jews  and  con- 
nected with  the  word  before  us,  as  denoting  a  nocturnal  spectre  (or  she-demon 
as  Gill  calls  it)  preying  upon  newborn  children,  against  which  the  German 
Jews  are  said  to  use  traditional  precautions.     This  gratuitous  interpretation 


570  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV. 

of  the  Hebrew  word  was  unfortunately  sanctioned  by  Bochart  and  Vitringa, 
and  adopted  with  eagerness  by  the  modern  Germans,  who  rejoice  in  every 
opportunity  of  charging  a  mistake  in  physics  or  a  vulgar  superstition  on  the 
Scriptures.     This  disposition  is  the  more  apparent  here,  because  the  writers 
of  this  school  usually  pique  themselves  upon  the  critical  discernment  with 
which  they  separate. the  exegetical  inventions  of  the  Rabbins  from  the  genu- 
ine meaning  of  the   Hebrew  text.     Gesenius,  for  example,  will  not  even 
grant  that  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  Messiah  is  so  much  as  mentioned  in 
the  writings  of  Isaiah,  although  no  opinion  has  been  more  universally  main- 
tained by  the  Jews,  from  the  date  of  their  oldest  uncanonical  books  extant. 
In  this  case,  their  unanimous  and  uninterrupted  testimony  goes  for  nothing, 
because  it  would  establish  an  unwelcome  identity  between  the  Messiah  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament.     But  when  the  object  is  to  fasten  on  the 
Scriptures  a  contemptible  and  odious  superstition,  the  utmost  deference  is 
paid,  not  only  to  the  silly  legends  of  the  Jews,  but  to  those  of  the  Greeks, 
Romans,  Zabians,  and  Russians,  which  are  collated  and  paraded  with  a 
prodigal  expenditure  of  trifling  erudition,  to  prove  what  never  was  disputed, 
that  these  superstitions  have  existed  and  do  still  exist ;  as  if  it  followed  of 
course  that  they  were  current  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  and  if  not  believed  are 
distinctly  mentioned  by  him.     But  this  conclusion  would  be  wholly  unau- 
thorized, even  if  the  words  of  the  Prophet  at  first  sight  seemed  to  bear  that 
meaning ;  how  much  more  when  it  can  only  be  attached  to  them  by  vio- 
lence.   J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  stands  among  the  writers  on  Isaiah  at  the  turn- 
ing point  between  belief  and  unbelief,  acquits  the  Prophet  of  believing  in 
such  spectres,  but  regards  it  as  a  case  of  accommodation  to  popular  errors  or 
illusions,  the  same  principle  on  which  the  demoniacal  possessions  of  the  gospel 
are  explained  away,  and  as  the  ultimate  result  of  the  same  process,  the  his- 
torical existence  of  Christ  himself  resolved  into  a  mythus.     That  a  similar 
mode  of  exposition  was  adopted  by  such  men  as  Bochart  and  Vitringa,  only 
proves  that  they  lived  before  its  dangerous  tendency  had  been  developed. 
It  should  also  be  considered  that  nocturnal  spectres  had  not  then  been  so 
decisively  referred  to  the  category  of  ideal   beings  as  they  are  at  present. 
These   remarks  are  intended  merely  to  prevent  an  inconsiderate  adoption 
of  the  views  in  question,  on  the  authority  either  of  the  older  writers  or  the 
modern  Germans.     Against  the  views  themselves  there  are  substantive  ob- 
jections of  the  most  conclusive  kind.     Besides  the  fact  already  mentioned, 
that  rv<W>  strictly  means  nocturnal,  and  that  its  application  to  a  spectre  is 
entirely  gratuitous,  we  may  argue  here,  as  in  ch.  13  :  25,  that  ghosts  as  well 
as  demons  would  be  wholly  out  of  place  in  a  list  of  wild  and  solitary  ani- 
mals.    That  such  animals  are  mentioned  in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse 
and  of  the  next,  is  allowed  by  all  interpreters,  however  widely  they  may 
differ  as  to  the  specific  meaning  of  the  terras  employed.     Taking  Gesenius's 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXIV.  571 

interpretation,  the  first  item  in  the  catalogue  is  vAld  cats,  the  second  wild 
dogs,  the  third  demons,  the  fourth  hobgoblins,  and  the  fifth  arrow-snaJces. 
Is  this  a  natural  succession  of  ideas  ?  Is  it  one  that  ought  to  be  assumed 
without  necessity  ?  The  only  necessity  that  can  exist  in  such  a  case  is  that 
of  meeting  the  conditions  of  the  context.  The  third  and  fourth  particulars 
in  this  list  must  of  course  be  something  doleful  or  terrific  ;  but  they  need 
not  be  more  so  than  the  other  objects  in  the  same  connexion.  It  is  enough 
if  they  belong  to  the  same  class,  in  this  respect,  with  wild-cats,  jackals, 
wolves,  and  arrow-snakes.  This  is  sufficiently  secured  by  making  r*V& 
mean  a  nocturnal  bird  (Aben  Ezra)  or  more  specifically  an  owl  (Cocceius) 
or  screech-owl  (Lowth).  But  the  word  admits  of  a  still  more  satisfactory 
interpretation,  in  exact  agreement  with  the  exposition  which  has  been 
already  given  of  the  preceding  terms  as  general  descriptions  rather  than 
specific  names.  If  these  terms  represent  the  animals  occupying  Idumea, 
first  as  belonging  to  the  wilderness  (c"^x),  then  as  distinguished  by  their 
fierce  or  melancholy  cries  (d^k),  a°d  tnen  as  snaggy  in  appearance  (-.ths), 
nothing  can  be  more  natural  than  that  the  fourth  epithet  should  also  be  ex- 
pressive of  their  habits  as  a  class,  and  no  such  epithet  could  well  be  more 
appropriate  than  that  of  nocturnal  or  belonging  to  the  night.  Another  ob- 
jection to  the  meaning  spectre  is,  that  the  poetry  and  legends  of  all  nations 
have  associated  with  such  beings  the  idea  of  inquietude.  When  Hamlet 
says,  Rest,  rest,  perturbed  spirit !  he  virtually  tells  the  ghost  to  cease  to  be 
one.  But  here,  according  to  the  fashionable  exegesis,  the  spectre  is  described, 
not  as  flitting  or  gliding  through  the  land  or  among  its  ruins,  but  as  taking 
up  its  lodgings  and  reposing.  Of  all  the  figures  that  could  be  employed, 
that  of  resting  seems  to  be  the  least  appropriate  in  the  description  of  a 
spectre,  and  especially  of  such  as  Gesenius  describes  to  us  from  eastern 
story  books  and  rabbinical  traditions.  Of  this  incongruity  he  seems  to  have 
had  at  least  a  vague  apprehension,  as  he  strangely  says  that  the  terms  here 
used  imply  a  restless  wandering  state,  whereas  they  seem  to  imply  the  very 
contrary,  and  no  less  strangely  cites  Matt.  12  :  43,  where  the  evil  spirit  is 
expressly  said  to  pass  through  dry  places  seeking  rest  and  finding  none. 
On  these  grounds,  therefore,  that  the  Hebrew  word,  according  to  its  deriva- 
tion, simply  means  nocturnal ;  that  in  this  sense  it  suits  perfectly  the  paral- 
lelism and  the  context,  as  containing  names  of  animals  or  rather  descrip- 
tions of  their  habits ;  that  the  action  described  is  peculiarly  unsuited  to  a 
ghost  or  a  spectre ;  that  the  Scriptures  contain  no  intimations  of  the  real 
existence  of  such  beings  ;  that  the  supposition  of  a  mere  accommodation  to 
the  popular  belief  is  dangerous,  unworthy,  and  gratuitous  ;  and  that  the 
existence  of  the  popular  belief  itself  so  early  is  exceedingly  improbable ; 
we  may  safely  set  aside  the  spectral  interpretation  as  untenable  on  philologi- 
cal and  historical  grounds,  and  as  certainly  not  worth  being  taken  for  granted. 


572  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV. 


The  same  considerations  make  it  unnecessary  to  retain  the  Hebrew  word 
(lilith),  as  Augusti  and  Henderson  have  done,  as  if  in  obedience  to  the 
flippant  direction  of  John  David  Michaelis,  that  whoever  will  not  tolerate 
a  ghost  here  must  retain  the  Hebrew  word  and  imagine  it  to  mean  what  he 
pleases  (was  ihm  beliebt).  The  alternatives  in  such  a  case  are  seldom  so 
few  as  they  are  sometimes  represented  by  this  learned  and  ingenious  but 
conceited  •  and  dogmatical  interpreter.  It  only  remains  to  observe  that  the 
Septuagint  version,  the  authority  of  which  has  done  so  much  to  introduce 
demons  into  ch.  13 :  23,  makes  use  of  the  word  datfiorut  in  this  verse  too, 
but  as  the  translation  of  d^s,  while  its  favourite  term  dvoxt'vzavooi  is  em- 
ployed to  represent  both  d^a  and  WW.  This  absurd  interpretation  is  so 
far  consistent  with  itself,  that  it  makes  the  whole  verse  a  catalogue  of  non- 
descript hobgoblins,  demons,  and  ass-centaurs,  and  if  not  a  refutation  of  the 
current  exposition  of  n"M,  is  at  least  a  severe  satire  on  it. 

V.  15.  Several  manuscripts  and  one  of  the  oldest  editions  read  *\*\&p  as 
in  v.  11  above,  and  the  Septuagint  has  iyjvog  in  both  places.     Jarchi  and 
Kimchi  explain  the  common  reading  (flap)  as  a  synonyme.    It  is  supposed 
to  denote  different  kinds  of  birds  by  Calvin  (ulula),  Junius  (merula),  Coc- 
ceius  (anatarid)  etc.     Bochart  objects  that  if  a  bird  were  meant,  its  wings 
would  have  been  mentioned  in  the  other  clause,  and  not  merely  its  shadow. 
Most  of  the  modern  writers  follow  Bochart  in  explaining  it  to  mean  the 
serpens  jaculus  or  arrow-snake,  so  called  from  its  darting  or  springing  mo- 
tion.   The  same  learned  writer  shows  that  the  use  of  the  word  nest  in  refer- 
ence to  serpents  is  common  in  Arabic  as  well  as  Greek  and  Latin.     There 
is  no  need  therefore  of  giving  nnp  a  wider  meaning  as  Jerome  does  (habuit 
foveam).     The  next  verb  is  rendered  by  the  Vulgate,  enutrivit  catulos ;  by 
Castalio,  as  an  adverbial  expression  meaning  safely,  with  impunity ;  but  by 
the  great  mass  of  interpreters,  as  meaning  to  lay  eggs,  a  sense  analogous  to 
that  of  the  cognate  form  applied  in  ch.  66:  7  to  human  parturition.    Jerome 
translates  the  next  verb  circumfodit,  but  most  other  writers  hatch,  the  pri- 
mary sense  being  that  of  cleaving.    (Compare  ch.  59 :  5.)     This  meaning 
Luther  seems  to  give  to  FiW,  perhaps  by  an  inadvertent  transposition. 
Others  explain  it  to  mean  gather  (Junius),  hide  (Augusti),  take  refuge 
(Rosenmuller),  but  the  latest  writers  brood  or  cherish,  after  the  Vulgate 
(fovet).     It  is  here  applied  to  the  young  when  hatched,  as  it  is  in  Jer.  17  : 
1 1  to  the  eggs  of  the  partridge.     Calvin  seems  to  refer  the  suffix  in  nbsa  not 
to  the  animal  but  to  some  other  object.     Grotius's  paraphrase  is  sub  minis. 
All  the  modern  writers  understand  it  to  mean,  under  her  own  shadow.     njn 
is  either  the  black  vulture  (Bochart)  or  the  kite  (Gesenius).    Lowth's  trans- 
lation, every  one  her  mate,  may  convey  an  incorrect  idea,  as  both  the  Hebrew 
words  are  feminine.     Cocceius  disregards  the  gender  and  translates  the 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIV.  573 

phrase,  units  cum  altero.  As  to  the  particular  species  of  animals  referred  to 
in  this  whole  passage,  there  is  no  need,  as  Calvin  well  observes,  of  troubling 
ourselves  much  about  them.  (iVo/i  est  cur  in  iis  magnopere  torqueamur.) 
The  general  sense  evidently  is,  that  a  human  population  should  be  succeeded 
by  wild  and  lonely  animals,  who  should  not  only  live  but  breed  there,  im- 
plying total  and  continued  desolation.  So  Horace  says  of  Troy :  Priami 
Paridisque  busto  insultat  armentum,  et  catulos  ferae  celant  inultae. 

V.  16.  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  Jehovah  and  read.  Knobel  connects 
vr— t  with  the  preceding  verse  (each  one  her  mate  they  seek),  and  then 
changes  the  remainder  of  this  clause  so  as  to  read  thus :  sop11  mm  -ibcb  hs, 
by  number  will  Jehovah  call  (them).  This  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to 
Lowth's  treatment  of  the  first  clause  of  v.  12,  but  is  still  more  extravagant. 
The  book  of  Jehovah  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  the  book  of  his 
decrees  (Aben  Ezra),  his  annals  or  record  of  events  (Forerius),  the  Scrip- 
tures generally,  or  more  particularly  the  book  of  Genesis,  or  that  part  which 
relates  to  clean  and  unclean  animals  (Jarchi),  the  Mosaic  law  relating  to  that 
subject  (Joseph  Kimchi),  the  law  in  general  (Calvin),  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion (Gill),  the  book  of  Prophecy  in  general  (Junius),  the  Prophecies  against 
Edom  in  particular  (Alting),  and  finally  this  very  prophecy  (David  Kim- 
chi). The  most  natural  interpretation  seems  to  be  that  which  makes  this 
an  exhortation  to  compare  the  prophecy  with  the  event,  and  which  is 
strongly  recommended  by  the  fact  that  all  the  verbs  are  in  the  past  tense, 
implying  that  the  Prophet  here  takes  his  stand  at  a  point  of  time  posterior 
to  the  event.  The  book  may  then  be  this  particular  prophecy,  or  the  whole 
prophetic  volume,  or  the  entire  scripture,  without  material  change  of  sense. 
The  persons  addressed  are  the  future  witnesses  of  the  event,  bsa  does  not 
mean  from  top  to  bottom,  as  Vitringa  imagines,  but  simply  from  upon,  as 
we  speak  of  reading  a  sentence  off  a  book  or  paper.  This  expression  seems 
to  have  been  used  in  anticipation  of  the  verb  W"ip,  which  has  here  the  sense 
of  publishing  by  reading  aloud.  One  of  them  has  not  failed.  A  very  few 
writers  understand  this  as  relating  to  the  evils  threatened ;  but  the  great 
majority  more  naturally  apply  it  to  the  animals  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
verses,  as  signs  of  desolation.  As  if  he  had  said,  I  predicted  that  Edom 
should  be  occupied  by  such  and  such  creatures,  and  behold  they  are  all 
here,  not  one  of  them  is  wanting.  This  is  a  lively  and  impressive  mode  of 
saying,  the  prediction  is  fulfilled.  One  another  they  miss  not.  The  verb 
has  here  the  sense  of  mustering  or  reviewing  to  discover  who  is  absent,  as 
in  1  Sam.  20:  6.  25:  15.  The  reference  is  not  to  the  pairing  of  animals 
(Barnes),  because  both  rvssx  and  nWflPi  are  feminine,  and  because  the  context 
requires  an  allusion  to  the  meeting  of  different  species,  not  of  the  individuals 
of  one  kind.     For  my  mouth,  it  has  commanded ;  and  his  spirit,  it  has 


574  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV. 


gathered  them,  i.  e.  the  animals  aforesaid.  The  last  phrase  is  a  more  spe- 
cific explanation  of  the  general  expression  has  commanded.  To  add  a  suffix 
to  the  latter,  therefore,  would  complete  the  parallelism  but  disturb  the  sense. 
The  sudden  change  of  person  from  my  mouth  to  his  spirit  has  led  to  various 
explanations.  Houbigant  reads  inB  and  Knobel  IrTO,  his  mouth,  which  is 
actually  found  in  a  few  manuscripts.  Lowth  reads  him  for  ton,  the  mouth 
of  Jehovah,  which  is  not  only  arbitrary  but  in  violation  of  his  favourite  prin- 
ciple of  parallelism.  The  same  objection  lies  against  the  explanation  of 
Kin,  by  Glassius  and  Simonis,  as  a  divine  name,  and  by  Rosenmuller  and 
Dathe,  as  a  substitute  for  it.  Such  an  explanation  of  the  second  sin  is 
precluded  by  the  foregoing  suffix.  A  much  more  plausible  solution  is  the 
one  proposed  by  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  who  refer  the  suffix  in  im-i  to  ">s 
(my  mouth  and  its  breath),  and  thus  make  God  the  speaker  in  both  clauses. 
But  on  the  whole,  the  simplest  course  is  either  to  suppose  with  Vitringa  that 
Jehovah  speaks  in  one  clause  and  the  Prophet  in  the  next,  an  enallage  too 
frequent  to  be  inadmissible,  or  that  the  Prophet  really  refers  the  command  to 
his  own  mouth  instrumentally,  but  then  immediately  names  the  Divine  Spirit 
as  the  efficient  agent.  This  is  the  less  improbable  because  the  first  clause 
of  the  verse,  as  we  have  seen,  contains  an  appeal  to  his  own  written  predic- 
tion. The  Spirit  of  God  is  not  merely  his  power  but  himself,  with  special 
reference  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  being  both  the  author  and  fulfiller  of  the 
prophecies. 

V.  17.  He  too  has  cast  the  lot  for  them,  and  his  hand  has  divided  it  to 
them  by  line.  An  evident  allusion  to  the  division  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
both  by  lot  and  measuring-line.  (See  Numb.  26:  55,  56.  Josh.  18:  4-6.) 
As  Canaan  was  allotted  to  Israel,  so  Edom  is  allotted  to  these  doleful  crea- 
tures. Having  referred  to  the  allotment  as  already  past,  he  now  describes 
the  occupation  as  future  and  perpetual.  Forever  shall  they  hold  it  as  a 
heritage,  to  all  generations  shall  they  dwell  therein.  Cocceius,  who  applies 
the  whole  prediction  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  thus  explains  this  last  clause : 
nunquam  restituetur  respublica  Judaeorum  in  ilia  terra. 


CHAPTER   XXXV. 


A  great  and  glorious  change  is  here  described  under  the  figure  of  a 
desert  clothed  with  luxuriant  vegetation,  vs.  1,  2.  The  people  are  encour- 
aged with  the  prospect  of  this  change  and  with  the  promise  of  avenging 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXV.  575 

judgments  on  their  enemies,  vs.  3,  4.  The  same  change  is  then  expressed, 
by  a  change  of  figure,  as  a  healing  of  corporeal  infirmities,  vs.  5,  6.  The 
former  figure  is  again  resumed,  and  the  wilderness  described  as  free  from  all 
its  wonted  inconveniences,  particularly  those  of  barrenness  and  thirst,  disap- 
pointment and  illusion,  pathlessness  and  beasts  of  prey,  vs.  7-9.  The 
whole  prediction  winds  up  with  a  promise  of  redemption,  restoration,  and 
endless  blessedness,  v.  10. 

This  chapter  is  regarded  by  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  and  Rosenmiiller,  as 
entirely  distinct  from  that  before  it ;  by  Hitzig  as  a  separate  composition  of 
the  same  writer ;  but  by  most  interpreters  as  a  direct  continuation  of  it. 
According  to  Rosenmuller,  it  was  written  by  the  author  of  ch.  xi,  xn  ;  ac- 
cording to  Umbreit  by  the  author  of  ch.  xl-lxvi,  according  to  Ewald  by 
another  in  imitation  of  that  writer ;  according  to  Gesenius  by  the  author  of 
ch.  xiii,  xiv,  which  the  passage  before  us  resembles,  he  says,  in  its  literary 
merit  and  its  moral  defects,  especially  its  spirit  of  revenge  and  blood- 
thirsty hatred.  All  these  writers  agree  that  it  cannot  be  the  work  of  Isaiah. 
As  a  sample  of  the  proofs  on  which  their  judgment  rests,  it  may  be  stated 
that  Hitzig  makes  the  use  of  the  form  ^xn  and  of  the  phrase  nb  inn^s  a 
proof  of  later  date.  He  authoritatively  sets  it  down  as  belonging  to  the 
period  immediately  before  the  termination  of  the  exile.  By  such  assertions 
and  pretended  proofs,  its  genuineness  is  of  course  unshaken. 

With  respect  to  the  subject  of  the  chapter  there  is  no  less  diversity  of 
judgment.  It  has  been  explained  with  equal  confidence  as  a  description 
of  the  state  of  Judah  under  Hezekiah  (Grotius),  of  the  return  from  exile 
(Clericus),  of  the  state  of  Judah  after  that  event  (Rosenmuller),  of  that 
state  and  the  times  of  the  New  Testament  together  (J.  H.  Michaelis),  of 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  (Cocceius),  of  the  Christian  dispensation  (Luther, 
Calvin,  al.),  of  the  state  of  the  church  after  the  fall  of  Antichrist  (Vitringa), 
of  the  state  of  Palestine  at  some  future  period  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  and  of  a 
future  state  of  blessedness  (Gill).  These  arbitrary  hypotheses  refute  each 
other.  The  best  description  of  the  chapter  is  that  given  by  Augusti  in  the 
title  to  his  version  of  it,  where  he  represents  it  as  the  description  of  a  happy 
condition  of  the  church  after  a  period  of  suffering.  This  is  no  doubt  its 
true  import,  and  when  thus  explained  it  may  be  considered  as  including 
various  particulars,  none  of  which  can  be  regarded  as  its  specific  or  exclusive 
subject.  Gesenius  says  this  prophecy  was  of  course  never  fulfilled  ;  but  so 
far  is  this  from  being  true,  that  it  has  rather  been  fulfilled  again  and  again. 
Without  any  change  of  its  essential  meaning  it  may  be  applied  to  the  resto- 
ration of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  to  the  vocation  of  the  Gentiles,  to  the 
whole  Christian  dispensation,  to  the  course  of  every  individual  believer,  and 
to  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  The  ground  of  this  manifold  application  is 
not  that  the  language  of  the  passage  is  unmeaning  or  indefinite,  but  that 


576  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV. 

there  is  a  real  and  designed  analogy  between  the  various  changes  men- 
tioned, which  brings  them  all  within  the  natural  scope  of  the  same  inspired 
description. 

V.  1.  Desert  and  waste  shall  rejoice  (for)  them.  The  verb  is  trans- 
lated as  an  imperative  of  the  second  or  third  person  by  the  Septuagint, 
Cocceius,  and  others ;  and  as  a  descriptive  present  by  Gesenius  and  some 
later  writers ;  but  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  strict 
sense  of  the  future.  The  desert  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean  Idu- 
mea,  Judea,  the  Jewish  church,  the  Christian  church,  the  Gentile  world,  and 
the  wilderness  separating  Palestine  from  Babylonia.  The  true  sense  seems 
to  be  that  given  by  Gesenius,  who  supposes  the  blooming  of  the  desert  to  be 
used  here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  to  express  an  entire  revolution,  the  subject 
of  the  change  being  not  determined  by  the  figure  itself  but  by  the  whole  con- 
nexion. The  final  d  has  been  variously  explained,  as  a  suffix,  equivalent  to 
dm,  crib,  or  dbs  ;  as  a  paragogic  letter,  used  instead  of  1,  on  account  of  the 
a  following ;  and  as  a  mere  orthographical  mistake,  arising  from  the  same 
cause.  Those  who  make  it  a  suffix  refer  it,  either  to  the  animals  described 
in  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  or  to  the  judgments  there  threatened 
against  Edom,  or  to  the  Jewish  exiles  returning  from  captivity.  The  suffix 
is  not  expressed  in  any  of  the  ancient  versions.  Kennicott  supposes  the 
D  to  have  been  added  merely  to  complete  the  line ;  but  why  should  such  a 
form  have  been  perpetuated  ?  The  idea  of  the  first  clause  is  repeated  in 
the  second.  And  the  wilderness  shall  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose. 
This  explanation  of  the  last  word  is  given  by  several  of  the  Rabbins,  and 
retained  by  Junius,  Cocceius,  Lowth,  and  Augusti.  The  later  writers  ob- 
ject that  the  word,  according  to  its  etymology,  must  denote  a  bulbous  plant. 
The  ancient  versions,  with  Luther  and  Calvin,  make  it  mean  the  lily,  which 
is  retained  by  Ewald  ;  but  for  this  flower  the  language  has  a  different  name. 
Saadias  and  Abulwalid  explain  it  the  narcissus,  which  is  approved  by  Gese- 
nius in  his  Commentary,  and  after  him  by  most  of  the  later  German  writers. 
But  in  his  Thesaurus  he  makes  it  mean  the  colchicum  autumnale  or  meadow- 
saffron.  Amidst  this  diversity  and  doubt,  it  is  best  with  Barnes  to  retain 
the  English  word  rose,  as  more  familiar  and  as  conveying  a  more  striking 
image  of  beauty.  The  poetry,  if  not  the  botany,  of  this  translation  is  supe- 
rior to  Henderson's  (and  blossom  as  the  crocus). 

V.  2.  The  same  idea  of  complete  and  joyful  change  is  again  expressed 
by  the  same  figure,  but  with  greater  fulness,  the  desert  being  here  described 
as  putting  on  and  wearing  the  appearance  of  the  spots  most  noted  for  luxu- 
riant vegetation.  (It  shall)  blossom,  it  shall  blossom  and  rejoice ;  yea,  (with) 
joy  and  shouting ;  or,  yea,  joy  and  shouting  (there  shall  be).    The  glory  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV.  577 


Lebanon  is  given  unto  it  (the  desert),  the  beauty  of  Carrnel  and  of  Sharon. 
They  (who  witness  this  great  change)  shall  see  the  glory  of  Jehovah,  the 
beauty  of  our  God.     The  figures  here  employed  are  so  familiar,  and  in 
their  obvious  meaning  so  expressive,  that  we  only  weaken   their  effect  by 
treating  them  as  symbols  or  an  allegory.     Thus  Jarchi  understands  by  the 
glory  of  Lebanon  the  temple ;  Gill,  choice  and  excellent   Christians,  etc. 
As  a  change  in  the  relative  condition  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  is  no  doubt 
included  in  the  prophecy,  there  is  not  the  same  objection  to  the  opinion  of 
Forerius,  that  the  second  clause  of  the  verse  denotes  the  transfer  of  God's 
spiritual  presence,  and  the  glory  connected  with  it,  from  the  Jewish  to  the 
Christian  church.   According  to  Oecolampadius,  Lebanon,  Carmel,  and  Sha- 
ron are  here  mentioned,  as  natural  boundaries  or  landmarks  of  the  country. 
Schmidius  supposes  that  a  mountain,  a  cultivated  field,  and  an  extensive 
plain,  are  given  as  samples  of  the  whole,  to  intimate  that  nothing  should  be 
wanting  to  the  perfection  of  the  state  here  promised  and  described.     But 
Lebanon  and  Carmel  are  both  mountains,  unless  we  give  the  latter  its  gene- 
ric sense  of  fruitful  field,  as  Junius  and  Tremellius  do,  in  obvious  violation 
of  the  context,  since  the  preceding  and  the  following  word  are  evidently 
proper  names.     The  glory  or  beauty  of  the  places  named  is  not  fertility, 
as  Grotius  thinks,  but  rather  its  effect  as  seen  in  their  luxuriant  vegetation. 
The  reduplication  of  the  first  verb  in  the  sentence  is  regarded  by  almost  all 
interpreters  as  emphatic,  though  they  differ  greatly  as  to  its  precise  force. 
Calvin  and  Junius  make  it  expressive  of  abundant  and  progressive  growth, 
as  if  he  had  said,  it  shall  blossom  more  and  more.     Hitzig  applies  it  to  the 
rankness  of  the  growth   (hoch  sprosst  sie  auf),  Knobel  to  its  universality 
(ganz  sprosset  sie).     Augusti  repeats  the   verb  as  in   Hebrew   (bluhen  ja 
bl'uhen),  and  the  Vulgate  copies  the  precise  form  still  more  closely  (germi- 
nans  germinabit). — The  future  translation  of  jfca  by  Calvin  and  the  English 
Version  is  gratuitous  and  arbitrary.     The  preterite  form  points  out  the  true 
relation  of  the  cause  to  its  effect.     It  shall  rejoice  becajuse  the  glory  of  Le- 
banon has  been  given  to  it.     The  pronoun  they  is  referred   by   Vitringa  to 
the  desert,  Lebanon,  etc.     But  as  these  are  the  immediate  antecedents, 
the  pronoun  would  hardly  have  been  introduced,  except  for  the  purpose 
of  directing  attention  to  some  other  nominative  than  the  nearest,  as  in 
Psalm  22 :  18.    The  true  sense  is  probably  that  given  in  the  Septuagint  (my 
people)  and  the  Targum  (the  house  of  Israel),  and  in  a  more  general  form 
by  Clericus  (qui  aderunt).     Instead  of  Jfrn,  the  Seventy  seem  to  have  read 
^ffi  (ta  epTjfia  iov  'Ioo8dvov),  and  this  reading,  with  a  corresponding  change 
of  the  preceding  word,  is  adopted  by   Houbigant   (frwtt  mh),  Kennicott 
(•p-ntt  rvna),  and  Lowth"  (the  well-watered  plain  of  Jordan).    The  words,  as 
they  stand  in  the  common  text,  may  be  construed  either  with  a  preposition 

37 


578  ISAIAH.  CHAP.  XXXV. 

or  the  substantive  verb  understood.     Eleven  manuscripts  read  ■£  (to  thee) 
for  r6  (to  it),  which  merely  converts  the  description  into  an  apostrophe. 

V.  3.  With  the  prospect  of  this  glorious  change  the  people  are  com- 
manded to  encourage  themselves  and  one  another.  Strengthen  hands  (now) 
sinking,  and  knees  (now)  tottering  make  firm.  The  hands  and  knees  are 
here  combined,  as  Vitringa  observes,  to  express  the  powers  of  action  and 
endurance.  The  participial  forms  represent  the  hands  as  actually  hanging 
down,  relaxed,  or  weakened,  and  the  knees  as  actually  giving  way.  The 
passage  thus  explained  is  far  more  expressive  than  if  we  make  the  participles 
adjectives,  denoting  a  permanent  quality  or  habitual  condition.  In  itself, 
the  language  of  this  verse  is  applicable  either  to  self-encouragement  or  to  the 
consolation  of  others.  It  is  understood  to  mean,  renew  your  own  strength, 
by  Cocceius  and  Clericus  (reparate  vires  vestras).  Most  of  the  older 
writers,  and  some  moderns,  make  the  other  the  prominent  idea,  and  suppose 
the  command  to  be  addressed  to  those  in  office  (Barnes),  or  to  ministers 
(Calvin),  or  to  the  prophets  (Knobel),  or  to  these  and  other  good  men 
(Grotius),  or  to  the  people  generally  (Junius).  Neither  of  these  interpreta- 
tions is  erroneous  except  in  being  too  exclusive.  There  is  no  reason  why 
the  words  should  not  be  taken  in  their  widest  sense,  as  meaning,  let  despon- 
dency be  exchanged  for  hope.  That  self-encouragement  is  not  excluded, 
may  be  learned  from  Paul's  use  of  the  words  in  that  sense  (Heb.  12:  12). 
That  mutual  encouragement  is  not  excluded,  is  sufficiently  apparent  from 
the  following  verse.  Thus  understood  the  words  may  be  considered  as 
including,  but  not  as  specifically  signifying,  spiritual  weakness  or  inability 
to  do  God's  will  (Targum),  and  the  duty  of  encouraging  the  Gentiles  with 
the  prospect  of  admission  to  his  favour  (Menochius).  The  specific  applica- 
tion of  the  passage  to  the  Roman  persecutions  (Gurtlerus)  is  gratuitous. 
Equally  so  is  the  idea  that  the  Jews  are  here  encouraged  under  the  depress- 
ing recollection  of  sufferings  already  past  (Grotius),  or  under  the  alarm 
excited  by  the  foregoing  threats  (Calvin).  The  same  objection  lies  against 
the  exclusive  reference  of  the  words  to  the  exiles  in  Babylon  who  distrusted 
the  promises  (Hendewerk)  or  believed  themselves  to  be  forsaken  by  Jehovah 
(Knobel).  As  a  general  exhortation,  they  are  applicable  to  these  and  to 
many  other  situations,  none  of  which  can  be  regarded  as  the  exclusive  sub- 
ject of  the  promise.  The  figures  here  used  are  the  same  with  those  em- 
ployed in  ch.  13:  7  and  in  Job  4  :  3,  4.  The  image  presented  is  that  of 
persons  who  can  scarcely  lift  up  their  hands  or  stand  upon  their  legs  (Gill). 
The  Septuagint  supposes  the  command  to  be  addressed  to  the  hands  them- 
selves (laxvaare  %9iQtt).  Hitzig  gratuitously  changes  hands  to  arms,  as  in 
ch.  10:  10,  13.  14:  27.  19:  16.  25:  10.  26:  11  etc. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV.  579 

V.  4.  This  verse  shows  how  the  command  in  the  one  before  it  is  to  be 
obeyed,  by  suggesting,  as  topics  of  mutual  encouragement,  the  vindicatory 
justice  of  God,  and  his  certain  interposition  in  behalf  of  his  people.  Say 
ye  to  the  hasty  of  heart  (i.  e.  the  impatient,  those  who  cannot  wait  for  the 
fulfilment  of  God's  promise),  Be  firm,  fear  not ;  behold  your  God  (as  if 
already  present  or  in  sight)  ;  vengeance  is  coming,  the  retribution  of  God ; 
he  (himself)  is  coming,  and  will  save  you.  The  connecting  link  between 
his  vengeance  and  their  safety  is  the  destruction  of  their  enemies.  (Seeing 
it  is  a  righteous  thing  ivith  God  to  recompense  tribulation  to  them  that 
trouble  you.  2  Thess.  1  :  6.)  ^riTar,  as  a  passive  participle,  corresponds,  in 
form  and  sense,  to  the  English  hurried.  It  has  been  variously  explained  as 
meaning  inconsiderate  (Junius),  precipitate  (Cocceius),  inconstant  (Vata- 
blus),  faint-hearted  (Lowth),  palpitating  (Rosenmuller),  ready  to  flee  (Ge- 
senius),  hasty  in  drawing  black  conclusions  upon  themselves  and  their  state 
(Gill).  But  the  true  sense  seems  to  be  the  one  expressed  by  Clericus,  to 
wit,  impatient  of  delay  in  the  execution  of  God's  promises  (qui  nullas  moras 
aequo  animo  ferre  possunt).  This  includes  the  ideas  of  despondency  and 
unbelieving  fear,  while  at  the  same  time  it  adheres  to  the  strict  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  word.  Compare  the  analogous  expression  in  ch.  28:  16,  he  that 
believeth  will  not  make  haste  or  be  impatient. — The  construction  of  the 
second  clause  is  greatly  perplexed  by  making  os^nbx  the  subject  of  «ia\ 
Thus  the  English  Version,  which  is  founded  upon  Calvin's,  supplies  two 
prepositions  and  assumes  an  unusual  inversion  of  the  terms.  Your  God  will 
come  (with)  vengeance,  even  God  (with)  a  recompense.  This  construction  also 
involves  an  anticlimax,  as  the  simple  name  of  God  is  of  course  less  emphatic 
than  the  full  phrase  your  God.  Luther  has  to  vengeance,  and  God  who  recom- 
penses. Jerome  makes  the  construction  still  more  complex  by  translating 
Ki2^  as  a  causative  (ullionem  adducet  retributionis) .  The  true  construction, 
as  given  by  Junius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  and  most  later  writers,  makes  behold 
your  God  an  exclamation,  and  vengeance  the  subject  of  the  verb.  Vitringa 
observes  that  WOtS  is  here  used  to  express  both  the  present  and  the  future, 
an  idea  which  may  be  conveyed  in  English  by  the  idiomatic  phrase,  is  com- 
intr  or  about  to  come.  The  Kin  might  be  grammatically  construed  with 
bina  (it  will  come),  but  as  the  act  of  saving  is  immediately  afterwards  ascribed 
to  the  same  subject,  it  is  better  to  explain  the  pronoun  as  an  emphatic  desig- 
nation of  Jehovah.  Not  only  his  vengeance  but  himself  is  coming.  Grotius, 
true  to  his  principle  of  seeking  the  fulfilment  of  all  prophecies  in  the  days  of 
the  Prophet  himself,  explains  he  will  save  you  as  meaning  he  will  not  let  the 
Ethiopians  reach  you.  The  exclusive  application  of  the  threatening  here 
implied  to  the  Babylonians,  the  Jews,  Antichrist,  or  the  Devil,  is  untenable 
for  reasons  which  have  been  already  given  in  the  exposition  of  the  foregoing 
verse.     While  Barnes  denies  that  the  phrase  your  God  refers  to  the  Messiah, 


530  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV. 

Calovius  alleges  that  the  name  of  Jesus  is  expressly  mentioned,  being  in- 
cluded in  the  verb  ro*.  The  words  are  really  a  promise  of  deliverance  to 
God's  people,  and  include,  as  the  most  important  part  of  their  contents,  the 
unspeakable  gift  of  Christ  and  his  salvation. 

Vs.  5,  6.  The  change  in  the  condition  of  the  people  is  now  represented 
by  another  figure,  the  removal  of  corporeal  infirmities.  Then  (when  God 
has  thus  come)  shall  the  eyes  of  the  blind  be  opened  and  the  ears  of  the 
deaf  shall  be  unstopped.  Then  shall  the  lame  leap  (or  bound)  as  an  hart 
and  the  tongue  of  the  dumb  shall  shout  (for  joy),  because  waters  have  burst 
forth  in  the  ivilderness  and  streams  in  the  desert.  The  reason  assigned  in 
this  last  clause  for  the  joy  to  be  expressed  shows  clearly  that  the  miracu- 
lous removal  of  disease  and  the  miraculous  irrigation  of  the  desert  are  in- 
tended  to  express  one  and  the  same  thing.  The  essential  idea  in  both  cases 
is  that  of  sudden  and  extraordinary  change.  This  precludes  Grotius's  in- 
terpretation of  the  fifth  verse  as  meaning  that  the  most  obtuse  and  prejudiced 
shall  see  and  acknowledge  what  God  has  wrought.  It  also  precludes  Jona- 
than's symbolical  exposition  of  the  words  as  predicting  the  removal  of 
spiritual  disabilities,  and  the  opposite  hypothesis,  maintained  by  many  of 
the  older  writers,  that  Isaiah  here  explicitly  foretells  the  miracles  of  Christ. 
Calovius  asserts  that  Christ  himself  has  so  interpreted  the  passage  in  Matt. 
11:5,  Luke  7  :  22.  But  as  Henderson  justly  says,  there  is  no  proof  what- 
ever that  Christ  refers  John  the  Baptist  to  this  prophecy  ;  he  employs  none 
of  the  formulas  which  he  uniformly  uses  when  directing  attention  to  the 
Old  Testament  (e.  g.  in  Matt.  9:  16.  11:  10.  12:  17.  13:  14),  but 
simply  appeals  to  his  miracles  in  proof  of  his  Messiahship;  the  language  is 
similar,  but  the  subjects  different.  Another  argument  is  urged  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  namely,  that  the  last  clause  of  the  sixth  verse  cannot  be  applied 
to  the  miracles  of  Christ,  and  yet  it  obviously  forms  a  part  of  the  same  pro- 
phetic picture.  The  evasion  of  this  difficulty  by  assuming,  as  Vitringa 
seems  inclined  to  do,  a  mixture  of  literal  and  figurative  language  in  the  par- 
allel clauses  of  the  very  same  description,  is  one  of  those  arbitrary  exegeti- 
cal  expedients,  which  can  only  be  affirmed  on  one  side  and  rejected  on  the 
other.  To  the  question  whether  this  prediction  is  in  no  sense  applicable  to 
our  Saviour's  miracles,  we  may  reply  with  Calvin,  that  although  they  are 
not  directly  mentioned,  they  were  really  an  emblem  and  example  of  the 
great  change  which  is  here  described.  So  too  the  spiritual  cures  effected 
by  the  gospel,  although  not  specifically  signified  by  these  words,  are  included 
in  the  glorious  revolution  which  they  do  denote.  The  simple  meaning  of 
the  passage  is,  that  the  divine  interposition  which  had  just  been  promised 
should  produce  as  wonderful  a  change  in  the  condition  of  mankind,  as  if 
the  blind  were  to  receive  their  sight,  the  dumb  to  speak,  the  deaf  to  hear, 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV.  581 


the  lame  to  walk,  and  deserts  to  be  fertilized  and  blossom  as  the  rose.  In 
the  process  of  this  mighty  transmutation,  miracles  were  really  performed, 
both  of  a  bodily  and  spiritual  nature,  but  the  great  change  which  includes 
these  includes  vastly  more.  Gesenius  and  others  understand  the  sixth  verse 
as  describing  the  joy  of  the  returning  exiles,  which  might  be  compared  to 
that  of  men  miraculously  healed  ;  but  it  is  far  more  natural  to  understand 
the  healing  as  descriptive  of  the  change  itself,  which  must  therefore  be  much 
more  extensive  than  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  although 
this  may  be  one  of  the  particulars  included.  To  the  explanation  of  ispaa 
as  a  future  there  is  the  same  objection  as  to  that  of  jrfe  in  v.  2.  The  origi- 
nal form  of  expression  is  not  that  they  shall  rejoice  for  waters  shall  burst 
forth,  but  that  they  shall  rejoice  because  waters  have  burst  forth  already, 
the  last  event  being  spoken  of  as  relatively  past,  i.  e.  as  previous  to  the  act 
of  rejoicing  which  the  future  verb  expresses.  The  version  when  they  shall 
have  burst  forth  (Cocceius)  yields  an  equally  good  sense,  and  indeed  the 
same  in  substance,  but  departs  without  necessity  from  the  usual  and  strict 
sense  of  the  particle.  The  suggestion,  which  Barnes  quotes  from  Camp- 
bell's travels  in  South  Africa,  that  lameness  and  dumbness  (i.  e.  indisposi- 
tion or  inability  to  speak)  are  here  alluded  to  as  painful  incidents  to  travel 
in  the  desert,  is  striking  and  ingenious,  but  a  little  far-fetched  and  at  variance 
with  the  context,  which  requires  changes  more  extraordinary  than  the  mere 
relief  of  taciturnity  and  footsore  weariness.  Here  as  in  ch.  34  :  14,  J.  D. 
Michaelis  first  suggests  a  fanciful  interpretation  (making  lameness  denote  ill 
success  in  war),  and  then  prescribes  as  the  only  alternative  a  reference  to 
the  paths  of  virtue  and  religion,  in  which  those  who  are  deficient  may  be 
said  to  halt  or  limp.  Clericus,  who  usually  follows  Grotius  in  preferring 
the  lowest  and  the  most  material  sense  of  which  the  language  is  susceptible, 
applies  these  words  to  spiritual  changes,  but  thinks  it  necessary  to  apologize 
for  this  departure  from  his  usual  mode  of  exegesis,  which  he  does  by  adding 
to  his  note  upon  the  sixth  verse,  ex  quibus  intelligere  licebit,  quamquam 
propriam  verborum  potestatem  sectemur  quotiescumque  licet,  nos  ubi  necesse 
est  ad  tralatitium  adeoque  allegoricum  (ut  vocatur)  sensum  devenire.  The 
only  wonder  is  that  he  was  able  to  overcome  his  scruples  in  a  case  where 
there  is  no  necessity  whatever  for  the  so-called  allegorical  interpretation,  but 
a  simple  instance  of  poetical  metaphor.  The  verb  *fl\  to  which  the  older 
writers  gave  the  sense  of  singing,  is  explained  by  the  modern  lexicographers 
as  properly  denoting  the  expression  of  joyous  feelings  by  inarticulate  cries 
or  shouts. 

V.  7.  The  idea  of  complete  and  joyful  change  is  still  expressed  by  the 
transformation  of  a  desert  and  the  consequent  removal  of  its  inconveniences, 
among  which  the  Prophet  here  particularly  mentions  the  tantalizing  illusions 


582  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV. 

to  which  travellers  in  the  wilderness  are  subject.  And  the  mirage  shall 
become  a  pool  (or  the  sand  lake  a  water  lake,  the  seeming  lake  a  real  one), 
and  (he  thirsty  land  springs  of  water,  (even)  in  the  haunt  of  wolves,  their 
lair,  a  court  (or  field)  for  reed  and  rush.  Instead  of  the  general  meaning 
put  upon  8?WI  by  the  older  writers  following  the  Septuagint  (avvdoog)  and 
the  Vulgate  (quae  erat  arida),  it  is  now  agreed  that  the  word  denotes  the 
illusive  appearance  caused  by  unequal  refraction  in  the  lower  strata  of  the 
atmosphere,  and  often  witnessed  both  at  sea  and  land,  called  in  English 
looming,  in  Italian  fata  morgana,  and  in  French  mirage.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
thanks  God  that  the  German  language  has  no  need  of  such  a  term ;  but 
Ewald  and  Umbreit  use  Kimmung  as  an  equivalent.  Other  equivalents  are 
employed  by  Hitzig  (Wasserschein) ,  DeWette  (Sandmeer),  Hendewerk 
(Sandschimmer),  and  Henderson  (vapoury  illusion).  In  the  deserts  of 
Arabia  and  Africa,  the  appearance  presented  is  precisely  that  of  an  exten- 
sive sheet  of  water,  tending  not  only  to  mislead  the  traveller  but  to  aggra- 
vate his  thirst  by  disappointment.  The  phenomenon  is  well  described  by 
Quintius  Curtius  in  his  Life  of  Alexander  the  Great.     (Arenas  vapor  aestivi 

solis  accendit Camporum  non  alia  quam  vasti  et  profundi  aequoris 

species  est.)     It  is  thus  referred  to  in  the  Koran  (24 :  39)  :    And  as  for 
those  who  disbelieve,  their  deeds  are  like  the  mirage  (l-jIvjuw)  in  the  desert ; 
the  thirsty  reckons  it  for  water,  till  when  he  comes  he  finds  it  nothing. 
More  deceitful  than  the  mirage  (or  serab),  is  an  Arabian  proverb.    Gesenius 
follows  Hyde  in  deriving  the  Hebrew  word  from  a  Persian  phrase  meaning 
a  surface  of  water.     Hitzig  explains  it  as  an  Arabic  derivative  denoting  an 
abundant  flow  or  stream.     Its  introduction  here   adds  a  beautiful  stroke  to 
the  description,  not  only  by  its  local  propriety,  but  by  its  strict  agreement 
with  the  context.     The  etymology  of  sira  suggests  the   idea  of  a  gushing 
fountain,  which  is  expressed  in  some  translations,  particularly  those  of  Lowth 
(bubbling  springs)  and  Augusti  (Sprudelquellen) .     Gesenius  and  the  other 
recent  German  writers  render  tP3n  jackals,  as  in  ch.  13:  21   and  34:  13; 
but   Henderson's  translation   (wolves)  has  a  better  effect  in  English.     The 
essential  idea  is  that  of  wild  and  solitary  animals.     ft*l  and  Tarn  are  com 
bined  as  in  ch.  34:  13.     The  latter  word  is  explained  by  some  as  meaning 
grass,  and  the  whole  clause  as  predicting,  that  hay  and  reeds  and  rushes 
(Luther),  or  grass  with  reeds  and  rushes  (Junius),  shall  grow  in  what  was 
once  the  haunt  of  wild  beasts  ;  or  that  grass  shall  grow  instead  of  reeds  and 
rushes  (Augusti)  ;  or  that  grass  shall  be  converted  into  reeds  and  rushes 
(Cocceius).     Most  writers  now  however  give  van  the  sense  of  court,  en- 
closure, or  the  more  general  one  of  place,  and  understand  the  clause  to 
mean,  that  what  was  once  the  haunt  of  wild  beasts  should  become  a  place 
for  the  growth  of  reeds  and  rushes,  which  require  a  great  degree  of  moisture, 
and  therefore  imply  an  entire  change  in  the  condition  of  the  desert.     The 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV.  583 

same  sense  is  given  by  Calvin  (locus  erit  arundini  et  junco)  and  Vitringa 
(late  excrescet  calamus  et  j uncus).  Knobel  instead  of  n^2*i  reads  nasi  on 
the  alleged  authority  of  the  Peshito  and  the  Vulgate  (orietur).  In  the 
haunt  of  jackals  springs  up  grass  to  (the  height  of)  reeds  and  rushes,  a 
luxuriance  of  vegetation  which  of  course  implies  excessive  moisture.  Even 
if  this  construction  of  the  particle  were  natural  and  justified  by  usage,  the 
change  in  the  text  would  still  be  inadmissible  because  unnecessary.  All 
these  interpretations  understand  the  last  clause  as  a  distinct  proposition  or 
description  of  a  change  to  be  wrought  in  the  haunts  or  lairs  of  desert 
animals.  But  Ewald  regards  the  whole  as  a  mere  description  of  the  desert 
and  continues  the  construction  into  the  next  verse.  In  the  haunt  of  jackals, 
(in)  their  lair,  (in)  the  place  for  reeds  and  rushes,  even  there  shall  be  a  way 
etc.  As  this  removes  the  difficulty  of  explaining  the  growth  of  reeds  and 
rushes  as  a  promise,  it  would  seem  to  be  entitled  to  the  preference,  but  for 
the  length  of  the  sentence  which  it  assumes  and  the  conjunction  at  the 
beginning  of  v.  8.  These  objections  may  be  obviated,  and  the  advantages 
of  the  construction  still  secured,  by  connecting  this,  as  a  descriptive  clause, 
not  with  what  follows  but  with  what  precedes:  fountains  shall  burst  forth 
in  the  haunt  of  wolves,  (in)  their  lair  (or  resting  place),  (in)  the  court  (or 
growing-place)  of  reeds  and  rushes.  We  may  then  suppose  either  that 
these  marshy  spots  are  represented  as  the  favourite  resort  of  certain  animals, 
or  that  two  distinct  descriptions  of  the  wilderness  are  given,  first  by  describ- 
ing it  as  the  resort  of  solitary  animals  and  then  as  insusceptible  alike  of 
culture  and  inhabitation.  The  description,  even  if  inapplicable  strictly  to 
the  same  spot,  might  correctly  be  applied  to  different  parts  of  the  same  wil- 
derness. The  suffix  in  nss->  refers  not  to  "px  understood  (DeDieu),  but  to 
nisn  as  a  pluralis  inhumanus  (Gesenius),or  to  each  of  the  D^n  distributively 
(Junius :  cubili  cujusque)  as  an  individual  of  the  feminine  gender  (Lam. 
4 :  31).  There  is  consequently  no  need  of  reading  n^n  (Kennicott),  fie 
(Houbigant),  ttsng  or  "sib  (Lowth).  Gesenius  supplies  a  relative  before 
nxsi  (which  was  its  lair  or  where  its  lair  was)  ;  but  a  much  more  natural 
construction  is  proposed  by  Maurer  and  Hitzig,  who  explain  it  as  in  simple 
apposition  with  e^an  ma.  The  explanation  which  has  now  been  given  of 
the  verse,  as  a  poetical  description  of  complete  and  joyful  change,  excludes  of 
course  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  pools  as  meaning  schools  and  the 
fountains  teachers  (Vitringa),  the  dragon's  den  the  heathen  world  (Schmi- 
dius),  the  dragons  themselves  persecutors,  pagan  emperors  and  papal  powers 
(Gill),  the  reeds  and  rushes  persons  eminent  in  spiritual  knowledge,  authority, 
and  influence  (Cocceius).  All  these  particulars  may  be  included  in  the 
change  described,  but  none  of  them  can  be  regarded  as  specifically  much 
less  as  exclusively  intended. 


584 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXV. 


V.  8.  The  desert  shall  cease  not  only  to  be  barren  but  also  to  be  path- 
less or  impassable  by  reason  of  sand.     And  there  shall  be  there  a  highway 
and  a  way ;  and  there  shall  not  pass  through  (or  over)  it  an  unclean  (thing 
or  person)  ;  and  it  shall  be  for  them  (alone).     Job  (12  :  24)  speaks  of  a 
-pn  xb  inn  (a  wilderness  in  which  there  is  no  way),  and  Jeremiah  (18 :  15) 
of  a  nbibo  xb  -pn  (a  way  not  cast  up),  to  both  which  descriptions  we  have 
here  a  contrast.     The  comparison  suggested  is  between  a  faint  track  in  the 
sand  and  a  solid  artificial  causeway.     (Rosenmiiller:  via  aggerata.     Hen- 
derson :  a  raised  road.     Vatablus  :  exaltata  lapidibus.     Clericus :  munita 
semita.)    Eighteen  manuscripts  and  several  ancient  versions  omit  "p*",  which 
may  be  explained  however  (with   Junius  and  Tremellius)  as  a  hendiadys, 
highway  and  way  for  high  way.    The  way  meant  is  explained  by  Forerius 
to  be  Christ,  faith,  and  the  sacraments ;  by  Gill,  a  way  cast  up  by  sovereign 
grace  which  is  raised  above  the  mire  and  dirt  of  sin,  and  carries  over  it 
and  from  it.     Grotius,  as  usual,  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  making  it 
denote  the  way  to  the  temple.     Gataker  seems  to  apply  it  to  the  improve- 
ment of  the  roads   in  Judea.     Musculus  understands  it  as  ensuring  to  the 
exiled  Jews  a  free  return  to  their  own  country.     But  even  this  return  seems 
to   be  only  one  of  many  particulars  included  in  the  promise  of  a  general 
change   and   restoration,  which   is  really  the  thing  denoted  by  this  whole 
series  of  prophetic  figures.     On  the  form  and  import  of  the  phrase,  it  shall 
be  called,  see  ch.  1  :   26.   (J.  H.  Michaelis  :  vocabitur  quia  erit.)     For  the 
way  of  holiness,  Clericus  substitutes  the  classical    expression,  via  sacra. 
The  next  clause  is   paraphrased  by  Grotius   as  meaning  that  no   Syrian, 
Assyrian,  Ethiopian,  or  Egyptian,  shall  be   seen  there.     Hitzig  explains  it 
as  an  exclusion  of  the  heathen  generally,  and  pronounces  it  a  trace  of  later 
Judaism.     Knobel  goes  further  and  describes  it  as  an  effusion  of  national 
hatred.     The  obvious  meaning  of  the  words  is  that  the  people  of  Jehovah 
shall  themselves  be  holy.     (Compare  ch.  1  :  25.    4 :  3.)     This  is  in  fact 
the  meaning  even   of  those   scriptures  which   exclude  from  Zion   (or  the 
sanctuary)  the  Canaanite  (Zech.  14  :  21),  the  uncircumcised  (Ezek.  44:  9), 
and  the  stranger   (Joel  4  :  17).     The  aon  may  be  grammatically  construed 
either  with   bnboa  or  with  "pi  which  is  sometimes   masculine.     It  shall  be 
for  is  rendered  by  Hitzig  it  belongs  to,  without  a  material  change  of  mean- 
ing.    The  pronoun  them,  which  has  no  expressed  antecedent  in  the  sentence, 
has  been  variously  applied  to  the  blind  whose  eyes  were  opened  (Junius),  to 
the  saints  (Gataker),  to  Israel  (Kimchi),  to  the   exiles  (Hitzig),  to  those 
recovered  from  idolatry  (Henderson),  and  to  those  truly  reformed  by  suffer- 
ing (Knobel).     Barnes  and  Henderson   refer  it,  by  prolepsis,  to  ft^HU  in 
the  next  verse.     This  is   no  doubt  substantially  correct ;  but  the  precise 
import  of  the  original  expression  seems  to  be,  that  the  highway  shall  belona 
exclusively  to  them  for  whose  sake  it  was  made,  for  whose   use  it  was 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV.  585 


intended.  A  very  different  sense  is  put  upon  this  phrase  by  Calvin,  who 
connects  it  with  what  follows  and  translates,  et  erit  illis  ambulans  in  via, 
referring  Kin  to  God  himself,  and  explaining  the  whole  as  a  promise  that  he 
would  go  before  them  in  the  way  thus  prepared,  as  he  went  before  Israel  of 
old  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire.  The  same  construction  is  adopted  by 
DeDieu  (et  erit  ipse  illis  ambulator  viae),  and  Clericus  (erit  gui prior  illis 
viam  ingredietur) ,  who  applies  it  expressly  to  Christ  as  the  dux  salutis  nos- 
trae.  Lowth  says  that  the  old  English  versions  gave  the  same  sense,  but 
that  our  last  translators  were  misled  by  the  absurd  division  of  the  verse  in 
the  masoretic  text,  destroying  the  construction  and  the  sense.  His  own 
version  is  :  but  He  himself  shall  be  with  them,  ivalking  in  the  way,  which 
he  explains  to  mean,  that  God  should  dwell  among  them,  and  set  them  an 
example  that  they  should  follow  his  steps.  Among  the  later  writers  this 
construction  is  approved  by  Dathe  and  Ewald  (und  da  er  den  Weg  ihnen 
geht).  The  objections  to  it,  stated  by  Gesenius,  are,  the  sense  which  it 
puts  upon  the  particle  in  to^>,  and  the  needless  violation  of  the  masoretic 
accents.  He,  and  most  of  the  other  modern  writers,  give  precisely  the 
construction  found  in  Junius  and  Tremellius  (viator  ne  stulti  quidem  pote- 
runt  deerrare),  taking  8p1  -|bn  as  equivaleut  to  ma  iss  (ch.  33  :  8),  and 
though  singular  in  form  collective  in  meaning  and  construction.  The  1 
before  d^ix  is  not  expletive  (Henderson)  but  exegetical  and  emphatic. 
The  meaning  strictly  is,  the  travellers  and  the  fools,  i.  e.  the  travellers  not 
excepting  such  as  are  ignorant  or  foolish.  bNViw  is  translated  by  the  Septua- 
gint  disanaQfJisvoi,  and  by  Cocceius  leves.  Gataker  explains  it  as  denoting 
simple-minded  Christians,  while  Henderson  understands  the  whole  clause  as 
a  promise,  that  the  Jewish  exiles,  however  defective  some  of  them  might  be 
in  intellectual  energy,  should  not  fail  of  reaching  Zion.  Hendewerk  comes 
nearer  to  the  full  sense  of  the  words,  which  he  explains  to  mean  that  only 
moral  impurity,  not  ignorance  or  weakness,  should  exclude  men  from  this 
highway.  But  the  words,  in  their  primary  and  strict  sense,  are  descriptive, 
not  of  the  travellers,  but  of  the  way  itself,  which  should  not  be  a  faint  or 
dubious  track  through  shifting  sands,  but  a  highway  so  distinctly  marked 
that  even  the  most  ignorant  and  inexperienced  could  not  miss  it.  The 
straightness  or  directness  of  the  path,  which  Grotius  and  Rosenmuller  make 
a  prominent  idea,  may  be  implied,  but  is  not  expressed. 

V.  9.  The  wilderness,  though  no  longer  barren  or  pathless,  might  still 
be  the  resort  of  beasts  of  prey.  The  promised  highway  might  itself  be 
exposed  to  their  incursions.  But  immunity  from  this  inconvenience  is  here 
promised.  There  shall  not  be  there  a  lion,  and  a  ravenous  beast  shall  not 
ascend  it,  nor  be  found  there  ;  and  (there)  shall  walk  redeemed  (ones). 
For  a  similar  promise,  in  a  still  more  figurative  dress,  see  Hosea  2:18,  and 


536  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV. 

for  a  description  of  the  desert  as  the  home  of  deadly  animals,  Isaiah  30 :  6. 
Hendewerk  refers  there  and  it  to  the  desert,  Hitzig  and  others  to  the  way. 
Both  are  consistent  with  the  context,  which  describes  all  the  inconveniences 
and  dangers  of  the  desert  as  removed  ;  but  in  this  place  the  primary  allusion 
is  no  doubt  to  the  highway  described  in  the  foregoing  verse.     Hence  the 
phrase   ascend  it,  i.  e.  from  the  level  of  the   sands,   through   which   the 
road  is  supposed  to  be  cast  up.    This  precludes  the  necessity  of  referring, 
with  Gesenius,  to  the  use  of  this  verb  by  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  reference  to 
the  journey  from  Babylon,  or  by  Job  in  reference  to  the  wilderness  itself  as 
higher  than  the  cultivated  country  (Job  6  :  18).    Lowth  seems  to  take  "piD 
IWi  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  lion   (the  tyrant  of  the  beasts).     But 
the  first  word  is  an  adjective  denoting  violent,  rapacious,  ravenous,  destruc- 
tive, deadly.     It  is  translated  as  a  simple  case  of  concord  by  the  Vulgate 
(mala  bestia),  Luther  (reissendes  Thier),  Tremellius  (violenta  fera),  the 
English   Bible   (ravenous  beast),  and  Henderson  (destructive  beast).     The 
original   construction    is   retained   by  Cocceius   (violenta  fer arum),  while 
Knobel  supplies  a  preposition  (ein  zerreissendes  unter  ihnen),  and  Ewald 
makes  it  a  direct  superlative  (das  gewaltsamste  der  Thiere).    These  terms 
are  applied  by  the  Targum  to  persecuting  kings   and  rulers,  by  Jarchi  to 
Nebuchadnezzar  in  particular,  by  Junius  to  the  enemies  of  the  church,  and 
by  Augusti  to  the   avenger  of  blood.     But  they  are  rather  intended   to 
complete  the  great  prophetic  picture  of  a  total  change  in  the  condition 
of  the   desert,  under  which  general    idea  we  may   then   include  a  great 
variety  of  suitable  particulars,  without  however  making  any  one  of  them 
the  exclusive  subject  of  the   prophecy.     The  feminine  verb  xsian  is  well 
explained  by  Knobel,  as  agreeing  in  form  with  tWH  and  in  sense  with  "p^s. 
There  is  no  need  therefore  of  reading  «:*«*  with  Lowth  on  the  authority  of 
four  Hebrew  manuscripts.     Knobel  gives  d^isw  its  original  and  proper  sense 
of  bought  back  i.  e.  out  of  the  bondage  into  which  they  had  been  sold. 
Most  other  writers  give  it  the  more  general  meaning  freed  or  delivered. 
(Junius:  vindicati.     Cocceius:  asserti.)    Barnes  understands  it  in  a  double 
sense,  as  expressive  both  of  temporal   and  spiritual   redemption.     Augusti 
refers  it  to  the  avenger  of  blood  whom  he  supposes  to  be  mentioned  in  the 
other  clause  (von  ihmgesichert  wandelt  man  hin).    Calvin  construes  lafcn  as 
a  subjunctive  (ut  redempti  ambulent).     Vitringa  makes  the  last  clause  a 
distinct  proposition,  or  rather  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse   (et  ibunt 
asserti,  et  redempti  etc.).     Ewald  adopts  a  construction  somewhat  similar 
(so  gehen  sit  erlbst,  und  Jahves  losgekaufte  u.  s.  w.).     There  is  no  need, 
however,  of  departing  from  the  simpler  and  more  usual  construction,  which 
connects  it  closely  with  what  goes  before,  supplying  there  as  in  the  English 
Bible  (the  redeemed  shall  walk  there)  and  only  as  in  the  version  of  Gesenius 
(nur  Erloste  gehen  dort). 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXV.  587 

V.  10.  The  whole  series  of  promises  is  here  summed  up  in  that  of  resto- 
ration and  complete  redemption.  And  the  ransomed  of  Jehovah  shall  return 
and  come  to  Zion  with  shouting,  and  everlasting  joy  upon  their  head ;  glad- 
ness and  joy  shall  overtake  (them),  and  sorrow  and  sighing  shall  flee  away. 
The  first  phrase,  which  is  no  doubt  equivalent  in  meaning  to  o">Vi&o  in  v.  9, 
is  paraphrased  as  follows  in  one  of  the  French  versions :  ceux-la  desquels 
VEternel  aura  paye  la  rangon.  The  connexion  with  the  preceding  context 
is  needlessly  though  not  erroneously  expressed  in  some  versions  by  trans- 
lating the  initial  particle  yea  (Lowth),  so  (J.  H.  Michaelis),  or  therefore 
(Calvin).  Zjon  is  mentioned  as  the  journey's  end;  they  shall  not  only 
move  towards  it  but  attain  it.  The  words  everlasting  joy  may  either  be 
governed  by  the  preposition  (with  shouting  and  everlasting  joy  upon  their 
head),  or  construed  with  the  substantive  verb  understood  (everlasting  joy 
shall  be  upon  their  head).  The  latter  construction  seems  to  agree  best 
with  the  Masoretic  accents.  Jarchi  understands  by  abis  nnaia  ancient  joy 
or  the  joy  of  old ;  but  more  seems  to  be  promised.  The  Chaldee  Para- 
phrase supposes  the  image  here  presented  to  be  that  of  a  cloud  of  glory 
encompassing  the  head  or  floating  over  it.  Gataker  and  Lowth  suppose  an 
allusion  to  a  crown  or  wreath,  and  Umbreit  to  a  sacerdotal  crown  particu- 
larly. Vitringa,  Gill,  and  Rosenmiiller  understand  the  Prophet  as  alluding 
to  the  festal  use  of  unguents.  (See  Ps.  45  :  8.  Ecc.  9 :  8.  Luke  7  :  46.) 
Paulus  combines  the  figure  of  a  crown  with  that  of  unction.  Gesenius, 
Maurer,  and  Knobel  explain  joy  upon  the  head  as  meaning  its  expression  in 
the  countenance.  According  to  Sanctius,  head  is  put  for  person  or  the 
whole  body,  which  seems  altogether  arbitrary.  Clericus  explains  the  clause 
to  mean  that  joy  shall  be  at  the  head  i.  e.  march  before  them.  It  de- 
serves to  be  recorded,  as  a  monstrum  inter pretationis,  that  Forerius  sup- 
poses an  allusion  to  the  washerwomen's  practice  of  carrying  clothes  upon 
their  heads.  In  the  last  clause,  joy  and  gladness  may  be  either  the  sub- 
ject or  the  object  of  the  verb.  The  latter  construction  is  given  in  the 
English  Bible  (they  shall  obtain  joy  and  gladness)  after  the  example  of  the 
Targum,  Peshito,  and  Vulgate.  In  favour  of  the  other,  which  is  given  in 
the  Septuagint  (xaralriipETai  avtovg),  may  be  urged  the  analogy  of  Deut. 
28 :  2  (all  these  blessings  shall  come  on  thee  and  overtake  thee)  and  of  the 
last  clause  of  the  verse,  where  sorrow  and  sighing  are  allowed  to  be  the 
subjects  of  the  verb  by  all  except  Cocceius,  who  consistently  translates  it, 
shall  escape  sorrow  and  sighing.  The  figures  of  this  verse  are  applied  to 
the  return  from  exile  by  the  Targum  (from  the  midst  of  their  captivity), 
and  Henderson  thinks  that  deliverance  not  too  trivial  to  be  thus  described. 
Junius  applies  it  in  a  wider  sense  to  the  reception  of  converts  into  the 
church.  Calvin  extends  it  to  the  whole  course  of  life  and  to  its  close. 
The  Talmud  applies  it  to  the  world  to  come,  and  Gill  says  that  'the  highway 


583  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI. 

before  described  not  only  leads  to  Zion  the  church  below,  but  to  the  Zion 
above,  to  the  heavenly  glory  ;  and  all  the  redeemed,  all  that  walk  in  this 
way,  shall  come  thither;  at  death  their  souls  return  to  God  that  gave  them, 
and  in  the  resurrection  their  bodies  shall  return  from  their  dusty  beds  and 
appear  before  God  in  Zion.'  The  allusions  to  the  Babylonian  exile  are 
correctly  explained  by  Barnes  upon  the  principle  that  minor  and  temporal 
deliverances  were  not  only  emblems  of  the  great  salvation  but  preparatory 
to  it.  The  devout  Vitringa  closes  his  exposition  of  the  cheering  promise, 
with  which  Isaiah  winds  up  the  first  great  division  of  his  prophecies,  by 
exclaiming  to  his  reader,  Ora  mecum  Dominum  supplex,  tit  earn  suo  tempore 
profiting  impleat ;  interim  credens  non  festinabit. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI. 


The  next  four  chapters  contain  a  historical  appendix  to  the  first  part  of 
Isaiah's  prophecies,  relating  chiefly  to  Sennacherib's  invasion  and  the  slaugh- 
ter of  his  host,  to  Hezekiah's  sickness  and  miraculous  recovery,  and  to  the 
friendly  intercourse  between  him  and  the  king  of  Babylon.  The  same  nar- 
rative is  found  substantially  in  the  second  book  of  Kings  (ch.  xviii-xx),  and 
a  different  account  of  the  same  matters  in  the  second  book  of  Chronicles 
(ch.  xxxn).  The  close  resemblance  of  the  former  passage  to  the  one  before 
us  has  afforded  full  scope  to  the  German  appetite  for  critical  conjecture  and 
ingenious  combination.  Paulus  and  Hendewerk  adhere  to  the  old  opinion 
of  Grotius  and  Vitringa,  that  the  narrative  in  Kings  is  a  varied  transcript  of 
the  one  in  Isaiah  ;  but  Eichhorn,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and  DeWette  regard 
the  latter  as  an  addition,  by  the  hand  of  a  compiler,  to  the  collection  of 
Isaiah's  prophecies,  abridged  and  otherwise  altered  from  the  book  of  Kings  ; 
while  Koppe,  Rosenmuller,  Hitzig,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel  consider  the  two 
narratives  as  parallel  or  collateral  abridgments,  made  by  different  writers, 
from  the  same  original,  viz.  a  more  extended  history,  no  longer  in  existence. 
This  last  hypothesis  is  founded  on  the  difficulty  of  maintaining  either  of  the 
others,  a  difficulty  springing  from  the  fact  that  neither  of  the  passages  sustains, 
in  all  respects,  the  character  of  an  original  or  an  abridgment.  Each  contains 
matter  which  is  not  found  in  the  other,  and  although  Gesenius  and  Knobel 
have  endeavoured  to  demonstrate  that  the  diction,  phraseology,  grammatical 
structure,  and  even  the  orthography  of  the  passage  before  us,  are  sympto- 
matic of  a  later  origin,  neither  the  principle  which  they  assume,  nor  its 
specific  application  here,  is  so  unquestionable  as  to  satisfy  the  mind  of  any 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI.  589 

ordinary  reader,  in  default  of  more  conclusive  evidence.  The  particular 
points  included  in  this  general  statement  will  be  noticed  in  the  exposition. 
From  the  strong  resemblance  of  the  passages,  and  the  impossibility  of  fixing 
upon  either  as  the  more  ancient  and  authentic  of  the  two,  the  natural  infer- 
ence would  seem  to  be,  that  they  are  different  draughts  or  copies  of  the  same 
composition,  or  at  least  that  they  are  both  the  work  of  the  same  writer,  and 
that  this  writer  is  Isaiah.  That  the  prophets  often  acted  as  historiogra- 
phers, and  that  Isaiah  in  particular  discharged  this  office,  are  recorded  facts. 
Nothing  can  be  more  natural,  therefore,  than  the  supposition  that  he  inserted 
the  same  narrative  in  one  book  as  a  part  of  the  chronicle  of  Judah,  and  in 
the  other  as  an  illustrative  appendix  to  his  earlier  prophecies.  To  what 
extent  this  would  make  him  the  author  of  the  books  of  Kings,  is  here  a 
question  of  but  little  moment.  Whether  these  are  to  be  regarded  as  com- 
plete compositions  of  particular  authors,  or  as  continuous  official  records, 
formed  by  successive  entries,  or  as  abstracts  of  such  records  made  for  per- 
manent preservation,  the  supposition  that  he  wrote  both  passages  is  equally 
admissible.  As  to  the  variations  of  the  two  from  one  another,  they  are 
precisely  such  as  might  have  been  expected  in  the  case  supposed,  that  is  to 
say,  in  the  case  of  the  same  writer  twice  recording  the  same  facts,  especially 
if  we  assume  an  interval  between  the  acts,  and  a  more  specific  purpose  in 
the  one  case  than  the  other.  It  must  also  be  considered  that  on  this  hypo- 
thesis, the  writer  expected  both  accounts  to  be  within  the  reach  of  the  same 
readers,  and  might  therefore  leave  them  to  illustrate  and  complete  each 
other.  That  there  is  nothing  in  these  variations  to  forbid  the  supposition  of 
their  being  from  the  same  pen,  is  evinced  by  the  circumstance  that  each  of 
the  parallels  has  been  declared,  for  similar  reasons,  and  with  equal  confi- 
dence, to  be  a  transcript  of  the  other.  Against  the  supposition  that  Isaiah 
is  the  author  of  both  or  either,  even  German  ingenuity  and  learning  have 
been  able  to  adduce  no  better  arguments  than  one  or  two  flimsy  philo- 
logical cavils,  such  as  the  use  of  Jewish  in  ch.  36:  11,  and  some  others 
which  will  be  particularly  mentioned  in  the  exposition,  together  with  the 
usual  objections  founded  on  the  assumed  impossibility  of  miracles  and  inspi- 
ration. Thus  the  recession  of  the  shadow,  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's 
army,  the  prediction  of  his  own  death,  and  of  the  length  of  Hezekiah's  life, 
are  all  alleged  with  great  naivete  by  the  infidel  interpreters  as  proofs  that 
these  chapters  are  of  later  date,  whereas  they  only  prove  that  their  writer 
was  a  prophet  sent  from  God.  The  simple  common-sense  view  of  the 
matter  is,  that  since  the  traditional  position  of  these  chapters  among  the 
writings  of  Isaiah  corresponds  exactly  to  the  known  fact  of  his  having  writ- 
ten a  part  of  the  history  of  Judah,  the  presumption  in  favour  of  his  having 
written  both  the  passages  in  question  cannot  be  shaken  by  the  mere  possi- 
bility, or  even  the  intrinsic  probability,  of  other  hypotheses,  for  which  there 


590  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI. 

is  not  ihe  least  external  evidence.  The  specific  end,  for  which  the  narrative 
is  here  appended  to  the  foregoing  prophecies,  appears  to  he  that  of  showing 
the  fulfilment  of  certain  prophecies  which  had  relation  to  a  proximate  futu- 
rity, and  thereby  gaining  credence  and  authority  for  those  which  had  a  wider 
scope  and  a  remoter  consummation. 

V.  1 .  And  it  was  (or  came  to  pass)  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  ihe  king 
Hezekiah.  Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria  came  up  against  all  the  fenced  (or 
fortified)  cities  of  Judah,  and  took  them.  The  parallel  passage  in  Kings 
is  immediately  preceded  by  a  summary  account  of  the  earlier  events  of 
Hezekiah's  reign,  with  particular  mention  of  his  religious  reformations  and 
his  extirpation  of  idolatry,  to  which  is  added  an  account  of  the  deportation 
of  the  ten  tribes  by  Shalmaneser  (2  Kings  18:  1—12).  This  visitation 
is  referred  to  the  apostasy  of  Israel  as  its  meritorious  cause,  and  contrasted 
with  the  favour  of  the  Lord  to  Hezekiah  as  a  faithful  servant.  While 
Ephraim  was  carried  away  never  to  return,  Judah  was  only  subjected  to 
a  temporary  chastisement,  the  record  of  which  follows.  The  verse  which 
directly  corresponds  to  that  before  us  (2  Kings  18:  13)  differs  from  it  only 
in  the  omission  of  the  idiomatic  formula  *JW.  The  statement  in  Chronicles 
(32 :  1)  is,  that  he  entered  into  Judah  and  encamped  against  the  fortified  cities 
and  proposed  (ie&oi)  to  subdue  them  to  himself.  The  same  restricted  sense 
is  put  by  some  interpreters  upon  the  stronger  phrase  {and  took  them)  which 
Isaiah  uses.  Others,  with  the  same  view,  limit  the  meaning  of  the  word  all 
before  cities.  Gesenius  understands  the  cities  here  meant  to  be  those  which 
Rehoboam  fortified  (2  Chf.  11  :  5-12).  Sennacherib  is  mentioned,  under 
nearly  the  same  name,  by  Herodotus,  who  calls  him  the  king  of  Assyria  and 
Arabia.  This  may  either  be  accounted  for,  as  an  example  of  the  loose 
geographical  distinctions  of  the  ancient  writers,  or  as  implying  that  the 
Assyrian  conquests  really  included  certain  portions  of  Arabia.  Between 
this  verse  and  the  next,  as  they  stand  in  Isaiah,  the  narrative  in  Kings  in- 
serts three  others,  which  relate  what  immediately  followed  the  invasion  of 
the  country  and  preceded  the  attack  upon  Jerusalem.  The  substance  oi 
this  statement  is  that  Hezekiah  sent  to  Sennacherib  at  Lachish,  saying,  1 
have  offended  (i.  e.  in  renouncing  his  allegiance  to  Assyria),  return  from 
me,  that  which  thou  puttest  on  me  I  will  bear ;  that  Sennacherib  accordingly 
imposed  a  tribute  of  three  hundred  talents  of  silver  and  thirty  of  gold,  to  pay 
which  Hezekiah  gave  him  all  the  treasures  of  the  palace  and  the  temple,  not 
excepting  the  metallic  decorations  of  the  doors  and  pillars  (2  Kings  18: 
14—16).  This  last  act  seems  to  be  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  view 
which  Calvin  takes  of  Hezekiah's  conduct  in  this  whole  transaction  as  en- 
tirely innocent  and  laudable,  evincing  a  pacific  disposition  and  a  willingness 
to  purchase  peace  at  any  price.     He  seems  indeed  to  have  been  disposed 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI.  591 


to  buy  it  far  too  dearly  when  he  stripped  the  house  of  God  to  pay  for  it, 
an  act  which  certainly  implies  distrust  of  the  divine  protection.  There  is 
nothing,  either  in  the  case  before  us,  or  in  the  general  analogy  of  Scripture, 
to  forbid  the  supposition,  that  the  narrative  was  intended  to  exhibit  the 
weakness  no  less  than  the  strength  of  Hezekiah's  faith,  in  which  case  there 
is  no  need  of  laboriously  vindicating  all  his  acts  as  perfectly  consistent  with 
a  strong  and  lively  faith,  although  his  general  sincerity  and  godliness  cannot 
be  questioned.  Another  addition  to  the  narrative  is  found  in  the  second 
book  of  Chronicles  (32:  1-8),  where  we  read  that  Hezekiah,  when  he  saw 
that  Sennacherib  was  come,  and  that  his  face  was  towards  Jerusalem  for 
war,  took  measures  to  strengthen  the  defences  of  the  city,  and  to  cut  off 
the  supply  of  water  from  the  enemy,  while  at  the  same  time  he  encouraged 
the  people  to  rely  upon  Jehovah  and  not  to  be  afraid  of  the  Assyrian  host. 
All  this  is  spoken  of  as  having  taken  place  before  what  is  recorded  in  the 
next  verse  of  the  chapter  now  before  us.  If  we  suppose  it  to  have  followed 
Hezekiah's  message  to  Sennacherib  and  payment  of  the  tribute,  the  infer- 
ence would  seem  to  be  that  the  invader,  having  received  the  money,  still 
appeared  disposed  to  march  upon  the  Holy  City,  whereupon  the  king  aban- 
doned all  hope  of  conciliation,  and  threw  himself  without  reserve  on  the 
divine  protection. 

V.  2.  And  the  king  of  Assyria  sent  Rabshakeh  from  Lachish  to  Jeru- 
salem, to  king  Hezekiah,  with  a  strong  force,  and  he  stood  by  the  conduit 
(or  aqueduct)  of  the  upper  pool,  in  the  highway  of  the  fuller's  field.  Be- 
sides Rabshakeh,  the  narrative  in  Kings  mentions  Tartan  and  Rabsaris ; 
that  in  Chronicles  uses  the  general  expression  his  servants.  Rabshakeh 
may  be  named  alone  here  as  the  chief  speaker,  or  as  the  commander  of  the 
expedition.  The  Jews  have  a  tradition  that  he  was  a  renegado  or  apostate 
Jew,  and  one  absurd  story  makes  him  out  to  have  been  a  son  of  Isaiah. 
Others  account  for  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew  by  supposing  him  to  have 
acquired  it  by  intercourse  with  captives  of  the  ten  tribes.  Lachish  was  a 
town  of  Judah  south-west  of  Jerusalem  on  the  way  to  Egypt.  This  place 
Sennacherib  was  now  besieging  (2  Chron.  32 :  9),  and  being  probably  de- 
tained longer  than  he  had  expected,  he  detached  a  part  of  his  forces  to  attack 
Jerusalem,  or  rather  to  summon  Hezekiah  to  surrender.  That  the  main 
body  of  the  army  afterwards  advanced  against  Jerusalem  is  nowhere  expli- 
citly recorded,  although  some  infer  from  ch.  10:  28-32  that  they  did  so, 
making  a  circuit  to  the  north  for  the  purpose  of  surprising  the  city.  It  is 
said  in  Chronicles  that  Sennacherib  was  now  before  Lachish,  in  the  military 
sense,  i.  e.  besieging  it,  with  all  his  force,  which  some  explain  to  mean  with 
a  large  part  of  it,  others  with  his  court  and  the  usual  accompaniments  of 
an  eastern  camp,  in  order  to  remove  a  supposed  inconsistency  with  what 


592  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVI. 

is  here  said.  But  the  phrase  in  Chronicles  relates  to  the  Assyrian  force  at 
Lachish  before  Rabshakeh  was  detached,  and  is  inserted  merely  to  explain 
the  statement  that  he  came  from  Lachish,  because  Sennacherib  had  halted 
there  with  all  his  army.  The  verb  lasi'may  also  be  referred  to  the  halt  of 
Rabshakeh's  detachment,  or  to  the  position  which  they  took  up  on  arriving ; 
but  it  is  simpler  to  refer  it  to  the  spot  on  which  Rabshakeh  himself  stood 
during  the  interview  about  to  be  described.  The  spot  was  doubtless  one  of 
great  resort.  For  the  localities  here  mentioned,  see  the  notes  on  ch.  7 :  3 
and  22:  9-11.  The  verse  in  Kings,  which  corresponds  to  this,  is  more 
redundant  in  expression,  from  which  Gesenius  infers  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  it  is  the  original  and  this  the  copy,  as  if  amplification  were  not  as  easy 
as  abridgment. 

V.  3.  Then  came  forth  unto  him  Eliakim,  Hilkiah's  son,  who  was  over 
the  house,  and  Shebna  the  scribe,  and  Joah,  Asaph's  son,  the  recorder. 
The  parallel  narrative  (2  Kings  18:  18)  prefixes  to  this  verse  a  statement 
that  he  called  to  (or  for)  the  king,  in  answer  to  which  summons  these  three 
ministers  came  out.  Eliakim  here  appears  as  Shebna's  successor,  according 
to  the  prophecy  in  ch.  22 :  20,  and  Shebna  himself  as  an  inferior  office- 
bearer. Interpreters  have  amused  themselves  with  trying  to  discover  equiva- 
lents in  modern  parlance  for  these  three  official  titles,  such  as  chamberlain, 
steward,  majordomo,  secretary,  master  of  requests,  master  of  the  rolls,  his- 
toriographer etc.  It  is  enough  to  know  that  they  probably  denote  three 
principal  officers  of  state,  or  of  the  royal  household,  which  in  oriental  gov- 
ernments is  very  much  the  same  thing.  Clericus,  in  his  version  of  this  sen- 
tence, omits  the  name  of  Joah,  and  then  notes  it  as  an  error  of  the  Hebrew 
text,  to  be  corrected  by  a  comparison  with  2  Kings  18:  18. 

V.  4.  And  Rabshakeh  said  to  them :  Say  now  (or  if  you  please)  to 
Hezekiah,  thus  saith  the  great  king,  the  king  of  Assyria,  What  is  this  confi- 
dence which  thou  confidest  in  ?  He  expresses  his  contempt  by  withholding 
the  name  of  king  from  Hezekiah  and  calling  his  own  master  the  great  king, 
a  common  title  of  the  Persian  and  other  oriental  monarchs,  corresponding  to 
Grand  Seignior,  Grand  Monar  que,  and  Emperor,  as  a  distinctive  royal  title. 
The  interrogation  in  the  last  clause  implies  surprise  and  scorn  at  a  reliance 
so  unfounded.  Confide  and  confidence  sustain  the  same  etymological  rela- 
tion to  each  other  as  the  Hebrew  noun  and  verb. 

V.  5.  I  say  (or  have  said),  only  word  of  lips,  counsel  and  strength  for 
the  war ;  now  on  whom  hast  thou  confided,  that  thou  hast  rebelled  against 
me?  The  parallel  passage  in  Kings  has  thou  hast  said,  which  Lowth 
assumes  to  be  the  true  text  here,  while  others  treat  the  common  reading  as 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXXVI.  593 

an  error  of  the  writer  or  abridger.     It  is  much  easier,  however,  to  account 
for  «5*7»I|J  as  having  arisen  from  FnEK,  a  defective  orthography  for  *n-l&tt,  than 
to  deduce  the  latter  from  the  former.     The  truth  no  doubt  is  that  both  the 
readings  are  original,  since  both  may  be  so  explained  as  to  express  the  same 
idea.     Many  interpreters  regard  what  follows  as  a  parenthesis   (it  is  only 
word  of  lips,  i.e.  mere  talk).     Others  make  it  interrogative  (is  mere  talk 
counsel  and  strength  for  the   war  ?)     Others  suppose  an  ellipsis  in  each 
member  (I  say  you  have  only  word  of  lips,  but  there  is  need  of  counsel  and 
strength  for  the  war).     The  simplest  construction  is:  I  say,  mere  word  of 
lips  is  (your)  counsel  and  strength  for  the  war,  i.  e.  your  pretended  strength 
and  wisdom  are  mere  talk,  false  pretension.     The  allusion  is  not  so  much 
to  Hezekiah's  prayers  (Kimchi)  as  to  his  addresses  to  the  people,  recorded 
in  2  Chr.  3*2:  6-8.     The  sense  of  the  other  passage  (2  Kings  18:  20) 
seems  to  be,  thou  hast  said  (to  thyself,  or  thought,  that)  mere  talk  is  counsel 
and  strength  for  the  war.     The  contemptuous  import  of  dtb»j  W  is  appa- 
rent from  Prov.  14:  23.     The  rebellion  mentioned   in  the  last  clause  is 
Hezekiah's  casting  off  the  Assyrian  yoke  (2  Kings  18:  7). 

V.  6.  Behold,  thou  hast  trusted  in  the  staff  (or  support)  of  this  broken 
reed,  in  Egypt,  which,  (if)  a  man  lean  upon  it,  will  go  into  his  hand  and 
pierce  it ;  so  is  Pharaoh  king  of  Egypt  to  all  those  trusting  in  him.  He 
answers  his  own  question.  The  charge  of  relying  upon  Egypt  may  be 
either  regarded  as  a  true  one,  or  as  a  malicious  fabrication,  or  as  a  mere 
inference  from  the  analogy  of  other  cases  and  the  habitual  relation  of  the 
parties.  Egypt  may  be  called  a  broken  reed,  either  as  being  always  weak, 
or  in  allusion  to  what  it  had  already  suffered  from  Assyria.  Broken  of 
course  does  not  mean  entirely  divided,  but  so  bruised  or  shattered  as  to 
yield  no  firm  support  but  rather  to  do  injury.  (See  ch.  42 :  3  below.)  Nei- 
ther Gesenius  nor  any  other  critic  seems  to  consider  cnstB  bs  as  a  gloss,  a 
strong  proof  that  such  explanatory  clauses  are  not  quite  so  unnatural  as  they 
are  elsewhere  represented.   (See  the  notes  on  ch.  7  :  17.  8 :  7.) 

V.  7.  And  if  thou  say  to  me,  we  trust  in  Jehovah  our  God,  is  it  not  he 
whose  high  places  and  whose  altars  Hezekiah  hath  taken  away,  and  said  to 
Judah  and  to  Jerusalem,  before  this  altar  shall  ye  worship.  The  parallel 
passage  (2  Kings  18 :  22)  has  ye  say  in  the  plural,  which  Gesenius  regards 
as  the  original  and  proper  form,  because  Hezekiah  is  afterwards  mentioned 
in  the  third  person.  But  what  then  becomes  of  the  favourite  critical  canon 
that  the  more  difficult  reading  is  commonly  the  true  one,  or  of  the  allegation 
that  the  author  of  the  text  before  us  is  proved  to  be  a  copyist  by  his  dispo- 
sition to  remove  irregularities  and  make  the  form  of  expression  uniform  ? 
Rabshakeh's  question  evidently  refers  to  Hezekiah's  reformation  of  reli- 

38 


594  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVI. 

gious  worship  (2  Kings  18:  4),  which  he  erroneously  regarded  as  a  change 
of  the  national  religion.  The  parallel  passage  adds,  at  the  end  of  the  sen- 
tence, in  Jerusalem,  which  is  just  as  likely  to  have  been  added  in  the  one 
copy,  as  to  have  been  omitted  in  the  other. 

V.  8.  And  now,  engage,  I  pray  thee,  with  my  lord,  the  Jcing  of  Assy- 
ria, and  I  will  give  thee  two  thousand  horses,  if  thou  be  able  on  thy  part  to 
set  riders  upon  them.  A  contemptuous  comparison  between  the  Jews,  who 
were  almost  destitute  of  cavalry,  and  the  Assyrians,  who  were  strong  in  that 
species  of  force  (ch.  5  :  28).  aijrn  is  not  to  wager,  nor  to  give  pledges, 
but  simply  to  engage  with ;  whether  in  fight  or  in  negotiation,  must  be  de- 
termined by  the  context. 

V.  9.  And  hoiv  wilt  thou  turn  away  the  face  of  one  governor  (or  satrap) 
of  the  least  of  my  master's  servants  1  So  thou  hast  reposed  thyself  on  Egypt, 
with  respeci  to  chariots  and  horses.  As  a  man  is  said  to  turn  his  face 
towards  an  object  of  attack,  so  the  latter  may  be  said  to  turn  back  (or 
away)  the  face  of  his  assailant  when  he  repels  him.  The  last  clause  fs  an 
inference  from  the  first,  as  the  first  is  from  the  foregoing  verse.  If  Hezekiah 
could  not  command  two  thousand  horsemen,  he  was  unprepared  to  resist 
even  a  detachment  of  the  Assyrian  force,  and  if  thus  helpless,  he  must  be 
trusting,  not  in  his  own  resources,  but  in  foreign  aid. 

V.  10.  And  now  (is  it)  without  Jehovah  1  have  come  up  against  this 
land  to  destroy  it  ?  Jehovah  said  to  me,  go  up  to  (or  against)  this  land,  and 
destroy  it.  Some  interpreters  suppose  that  the  Assyrians  had  heard  of 
prophecies,  in  which  they  were  described  as  instruments  by  which  Jehovah 
meant  to  punish  his  own  people.  It  is  much  more  natural,  however,  to 
regard  this  as  a  bold  attempt  to  terrify  the  Jews  by  pleading  the  authority 
of  their  own  tutelary  deity  for  this  invasion.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings 
18  :  25)  has  place  instead  of  the  first  land,  a  clear  case,  as  Knobel  imagines, 
of  assimilation  on  the  part  of  the  transcriber.  But  no  such  inference  was 
drawn  from  the  opposite  appearance  in  v.  7,  nor  is  any  attempt  made  to 
explain  why  the  b$  and  -i«  were  not  assimilated  also. 

V.  1 1 .  Then  said  Eliakim,  and  Shebna,  and  Joah,  unto  Rabshakeh, 
Pray  speak  unto  thy  servants  in  Aramean,  for  we  understand  (it),  and 
speak  not  to  us  in  Jewish,  in  the  ears  of  the  people  who  (are)  on  the  wall. 
This  request  implies  an  apprehension  of  the  bad  effect  of  his  address  upon 
the  multitude.  Aramean  corresponds  very  nearly  to  Syrian  in  latitude  of 
meaning ;  but  the  language  meant  is  not  what  we  call  Syriac,  but  an  older 
form,  which  was  probably  current,  as  the  French  is  now,  at  the  courts  and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI.  595 

among  the  educated  classes  of  an  extensive  region.  Jewish  is  Hebrew,  so 
called  by  the  Jews,  as  the  language  of  the  whole  British  empire  is  called 
English,  or  as  German  is  sometimes  called  Saxon.  The  use  of  this  term 
here  is  urged  by  some  as  a  proof  of  later  date  than  the  time  of  Isaiah,  on 
the  ground  that  the  distinctive  name  Jewish  could  not  have  been  common 
till  long  after  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  left 
Judah  the  only  representative  of  Israel.  But  how  long  after  this  event 
may  we  assume  that  such  a  usage  became  common  ?  The  ten  tribes  were 
carried  into  exile  by  Sennacherib's  father,  if  not  by  his  grandfather.  It  is 
altogether  probable  that  from  the  time  of  the  great  schism  between  Ephraim 
and  Judah,  the  latter  began  to  call  the  national  language  by  its  own  distinc- 
tive name.  At  the  period  in  question,  such  a  designation  was  certainly 
more  natural,  in  the  mouths  of  Jews,  than  Israelitish  or  even  Hebrew.  We 
understand,  literally,  we  (are)  hearing,  i.  e.  hearing  distinctly  and  intelli- 
gently. 

V.  12.  And  Rabshakeh  said :  Is  it  to  thy  master  and  to  thee,  that  my 
master  hath  sent  me  to  speak  these  words  1  Is  it  not  to  the  men  sitting  on 
the  wall  to  eat  their  own  dung  and  to  drink  their  own  water  with  you  1 
The  last  clause  might  seem  to  mean,  is  it  not  appointed  to  them,  necessary 
for  them,  or  are  they  not  doomed  etc  1  But  since  bs?  is  used  in  the  parallel 
passage  (2  Kings  18:  27)  after  nbiu,  as  a  simple  equivalent  to  bx,  it  is  bet- 
ter to  repeat  the  verb  of  the  first  clause  at  the  beginning'  of  the  second  :  has 
he  not  sent  me  1  The  last  clause  is  obviously  descriptive  of  the  horrors  of 
famine  in  their  most  revolting  form.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed  still  more 
distinctly  in  Chronicles :  whereon  do  ye  trust  that  ye  abide  in  the  fortress  of 
Jerusalem  ?  doth  not  Hezekiah  persuade  you  to  give  over  yourselves  to  die 
by  famine  and  by  thirst,  saying,  the  Lord  our  God  shall  deliver  us  out  of 
the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria  1  (2  Chr.  32:  10,  11).  So  here  the  peo- 
ple are  described  as  sitting  on  the  wall,  i.  e.  holding  out  against  Sennacherib, 
only  that  they  may  experience  these  horrors.  The  masoretic  readings  in  the 
margin  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  are  mere  euphemistic  variations,  "piifl  might 
seem  to  mean  thy  masters,  as  the  singular  my  master  is  expressed  in  the 
same  sentence  by  its  proper  form.  But  the  fact  is  that  the  singular  fta*  is 
never  joined  with  any  suffixes  but  those  of  the  first  person.  The  only  form, 
therefore,  in  which  thy  master  could  have  been  expressed,  is  that  here  used. 
The  ambiguity  is  removed  by  the  connexion,  which  requires  the  phrase  to 
be  applied  to  Hezekiah. 

V.  13.  And  Rabshakeh  stood  and  called  with  a  loud  voice  in  Jewish 
(i.  e.   Hebrew),  and  said,  Hear  the  words  of  the  great  king,  the  king  of 
Assyria.    In  so  doing  he  not  only  testified  his  contempt  for  the  king's  mes- 


596  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI. 

sengers  by  insolently  disregarding  their  request,  but  made  a  politic  appeal 
to  the  hopes  and  fears  of  the  multitude.  That  he  stood  and  called,  is  ex- 
plained by  some  to  mean  that  he  assumed  a  higher  position,  or  came  nearer 
to  the  wall ;  but  the  simplest  and  most  natural  explanation  is,  that  he 
remained  where  he  was  before  and  merely  raised  his  voice. 

» 
V.  14.    Thus  saith  the  king:  let  not  Hezekiah  deceive  you,  for  he  will 

not  be  able  to  deliver  you.  The  repeated  mention  of  the  king  reminds 
them,  that  he  is  not  speaking  in  his  own  name,  but  in  that  of  a  great  mon- 
arch.    The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  18:  29)  adds,  out  of  his  hand. 

V.  15.  And  let  not  Hezekiah  make  you  trust  in  Jehovah,  saying,  Jeho- 
vah will  certainly  save  us,  this  city  shall  not  be  given  up  into  the  hand  of 
the  king  of  Assyria.  The  only  difference  between  this  and  the  parallel 
passage  (2  Kings  18:  30)  is  that  the  latter  inserts  ra  before  this  city,  a 
construction  of  the  passive  verb  which,  according  to  Knobel,  was  considered 
incorrect  by  the  transcriber.  The  idea  of  certain  deliverance  is  expressed 
by  the  idiomatic  combination  of  the  future  and  infinitive. 

V.  16.  Hearken  not  to  Hezekiah,  for  thus  saith  the  king  of  Assyria, 
make  with  me  a  blessing,  and  come  out  unto  me,  and  eat  ye   (every)  man 
his  own  vine  and  (every)  man  his  own  Jig-tree,  and  drink  ye  (every)  man 
the  waters  of  his  own  cistern,     risers  usually  means  a  blessing,  but  in  a 
few  instances  a  gift  or  present,  as  a  token  of  good  will.     Hence  some 
explain  the  phrase  here  used,  make  me  a  present,  or  make  an  agreement 
with  me  by  a  present.     Others  give  the  Hebrew  word,  in  this  one  case,  the 
sense  of  peace,  which  of  course  suits  the  connexion,  because  it' is  in  fact  a 
mere  conjecture  from  the  context.    If  an  unusual  meaning  of  the  word  must 
be  assumed,  it  might  have  that  of  kneeling,  as  a  gesture  of  submission  or  an 
act  of  homage,  from  Tps  to  kneel.     It  is  possible,  however,  to  adhere  more 
closely  to  the  usage  of  the  term,  by  taking  blessing  in  the  sense  of  friendly 
salutation,  which  in  the  east  is  commonly  an  invocation  of  the  divine  bless- 
ing.    Thus  the  verb  to  bless  is  often  used  to  express  the  act  of  greeting  or 
of  taking  leave.     To  make  a  blessing  with  one  then  might  mean  to  enter 
into  amicable  intercourse.     To  come  out  is  in  Hebrew  the  common  military 
phrase  for  the  surrender  of  a  besieged  town.     The  inducements  offered  in 
the  last  clause  are  in  obvious  antithesis  to  the  revolting  threat  or  warning 
io  the  last  clause  of  v.  12.     To  eat  the  vine  and  fig-tree  (meaning  to  eat 
their  fruit)  is  an  elliptical  form  of  speech,  which  has  its  analogies  in  every 
language. 

V.  17.   Until  I  come  and  take  you  away  to  a  land  like  your  own  land, 
a  land  of  corn  and  wine,  a  land  of  bread  and  vineyards.     The  parallel 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI.  597 

passage  (2  Kings  18:  32)  adds,  a  land  of  oil-olive  and  honey,  that  ye  may 
live  and  not  die,  which  has  quite  as  much  the  aspect  of  an  amplified  copy 
as  of  a  redundant  original.  This  reference  to  the  deportation  of  the  people 
as  a  future  event  has  led  some  interpreters  to  the  conclusion,  that  Senna- 
cherib was  now  on  his  way  to  Egypt,  and  deferred  the  measure  until  his 
return.  It  has  been  disputed  what  particular  land  is  here  meant,  some 
saying  Mesopotamia,  to  which  others  object  that  it  was  not  a  wine-growing 
country.  But,  as  Knobel  observes,  there  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  the 
Assyrian's  description  was  exactly  true.  He  may  indeed  have  intended 
merely  to  promise  them  in  general  a  country  as  abundant  as  their  own. 

V.  18.  Let  not  (or  beware  lest)  Hezelciah  seduce  you,  saying,  Jehovah 
tcill  deliver  us.  Have  the  gods  of  the  nations  delivered  every  one  his  land 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria  ?  ",s  is  commonly  equivalent  to  lest, 
and  dependent  on  a  foregoing  verb,  but  sometimes  (like  the  Latin  ne)  stands 
at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence.  Here  we  may  either  supply  take  heed,  or 
regard  p  as  equivalent  to  ?x,  which  is  actually  used  in  the  parallel  passage 
(2  Kings  18:  32)  with  a  repetition  of  the  verb  iSE^n  (hearken  not  to 
Hezekiah  when  he  incites,  or,  for  he  shall  incite  you,  saying).  Had  this 
been  the  form  of  expression  in  Isaiah,  we  should  have  seen  it  noted  as  an 
instance  of  assimilation  characteristic  of  a  later  writer ;  but  as  it  unluckily 
occurs  in  the  other  place,  it  is  discreetly  overlooked  by  the  interpreters. 
The  Assyrian  here,  with  characteristic  recklessness,  forsakes  his  previous 
position,  that  he  was  but  acting  as  Jehovah's  instrument,  and  sets  himself 
in  disdainful  opposition  to  Jehovah  himself. 

V.  19.  Where  (are)  the  gods  of  Hamath  and  Arpad  ?  where  the  gods  of 
Sepharvaim  ?  and  (when  or  where  was  it)  that  they  delivered  Samaria  out 
of  my  hand?  In  the  rapidity  of  his  triumphant  interrogation,  he  expresses 
himself  darkly  and  imperfectly.  The  last  clause  must  of  course  refer  to  the 
gods  of  Samaria,  though  not  expressly  mentioned,  "o  is  not  an  interrogative 
pronoun  (who  have  delivered?),  nor  an  interrogative  particle  (have  they 
delivered?),  but  a  connective  particle,  dependent  upon  something  not  ex- 
pressed. For  the  situation  of  Hamath  and  Arpad,  see  the  note  on  ch.  10: 
9.  Sepharvaim  is  probably  the  Sipphara  of  Ptolemy,  a  town  aud  province 
in  the  south  of  Mesopotamia,  already  subject  to  Assyria  in  the  days  of  Shal- 
maneser.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  18:  34)  adds  Hcna  and  Ivvah, 
which  are  also  named  with  Sepharvaim  in  2  Kings  19:  13  and  Isai.  37 :  13. 
The  question  (where  are  they  ?)  seems  to  imply,  not  only  that  they  had  not 
saved  their  worshippers,  but  that  they  had  ceased  to  -be. 

V.  20.    Who  (are  they)  among  all  the  gods  of  these  lands,   that  have 
delivered  their  land  out  of  my  hand,  that  Jehovah  should  deliver  Jerusalem 


598  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVI. 


out  of  my  hand?  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  18 :  35)  omits  these  before 
lands,  another  exception  to  the  general  statement,  that  the  narrative  before 
us  is  an  abridgment  of  the  other.  In  this  argumentative  interrogation,  he 
puts  Jehovah  on  a  level  with  the  gods  of  the  surrounding  nations.  This  is 
still  more  frequently  and  pointedly  expressed  in  the  parallel  passage  in 
Chronicles.  Know  ye  not  what  I  and  my  fathers  have  done  unto  all  the 
nations  of  the  countries  1  Were  the  gods  of  the  nations  of  the  countries  able 
to  deliver  their  country  out  of  my  hand  1  Who  was  there  among  all  the  gods 
of  these  nations,  which  my  fathers  utterly  destroyed,  that  was  able  to  deliver 
his  people  out  of  my  hand,  that  your  God  should  be  able  to  deliver  you  out 
of  my  hand  1  And  now,  let  not  Hezekiah  deceive  you,  and  let  him  not 
seduce  you,  neither  believe  him;  for  no  god  of  any  nation  or  kingdom  has 
been  able  to  deliver  his  people  out  of  my  hand,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  my 
fathers ;  how  much  less  shall  your  God  deliver  you  out  of  my  hand. 
(2  Chron.  32:  13-15.)  From  the  same  authority  we  learn  that  over  and 
above  what  is  recorded,  Sennacherib's  servants  spake  still  more  against  the 
God  Jehovah  and  against  Hezekiah  his  servant  (v.  16),  and  that  they  cried 
with  a  loud  voice  in  the  Jewish  language,  to  the  'people  of  Jerusalem  who 
were  on  the  wall,  to  affright  them,  and  to  trouble  them,  that  they  might  take 
the  city ;  and  they  spake  against  the  God  of  Jerusalem  as  against  the  gods 
of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  work  of  men's  hands  (vs.  18,  19). 

V.  21.  And  they  held  their  peace,  and  did  not  answer  him  a  word,  for 
such  was  the  commandment  of  the  king,  saying,  Ye  shall  not  answer  him. 
Some  interpreters  refer  the  first  clause  to  Eliakim,  Shebna,  and  Joah ;  but 
the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  18:  36)  says  expressly  that  the  people  held 
their  peace,  which  Knobel  says  is  more  correct,  as  if  the  two  were  inconsis- 
tent, and  gravely  adds,  that  our  narrator  was  thinking  of  the  messengers. 
The  notion  of  some  of  the  old  writers,  that  they  did  confer  with  him,  not- 
withstanding what  is  here  said,  is  gratuitous  and  arbitrary  in  a  high  degree. 

V.  22.  Then  came  Eliakim,  Hilkiah's  son,  ivho  (was)  over  the  house, 
and  Shebna  the  scribe,  and  Joah,  Asaph's  son,  the  recorder,  unto  Hezekiah, 
with  their  clothes  rent  (literally,  rent  of  clothes),  and  told  him  the  words  of 
Rabshakeh.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understand  the  rending  of  their  ear- 
ments  as  a  mere  sign  of  their  horror  at  Rabshakeh's  blasphemies ;  some  of 
the  moderns  as  a  mere  sign  of  despondency  and  alarm  at  the  impending 
dangers  ;  whereas  both  may  naturally  be  included. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  599 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

This  chapter  is  a  direct  continuation  of  the  one  before  it.  It  describes 
the  effect  of  Rabshakeh's  blasphemies  and  threats  on  Hezekiah,  his  humilia- 
tion, his  message  to  Isaiah,  and  the  answer,  the  retreat  of  Rabshakeh, 
Sennacherib's  letter,  Hezekiah's  prayer,  Isaiah's  prophecy,  and  its  fulfilment, 
in  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  army  and  his  own  flight  and  murder. 

V.  1.  And  it  was  (or  came  to  pass),  when  King  Hezekiah  heard  (the 
report  of  his  messengers),  that  he  rent  his  clothes,  and  covered  himself  with 
sackcloth,  and  went  into  the  house  of  Jehovah.  Gill's  suggestion,  that  he 
rent  his  clothes  because  of  the  Assyrian's  blasphemy  and  put  on  sackcloth 
because  of  his  threats,  appears  to  be  a  fanciful  distinction.  Both  acts  were 
customary  signs  of  mourning  and  appropriate  to  any  case  of  deep  distress. 
He  resorted  to  the  temple,  not  only  as  a  public  place,  but  with  reference  to 
the  promise  made  to  Solomon  (I  Kings  8:  29),  that  God  would  hear  the 
prayers  of  his  people  from  that  place  when  they  were  in  distress.  Under 
the  old  dispensation  there  were  reasons  for  resorting  to  the  temple,  even  to 
offer  private  supplications,  which  cannot  possibly  apply  to  any  church  or 
other  place  at  present.  This  arose  partly  from  the  fact  that  prayer  was 
connected  with  sacrifice,  and  this  was  rigidly  confined  to  one  spot. 

V.  2.  And  he  sent  Eliakim  who  was  over  the  household,  and  Shebna 
the  scribe,  and  the  elders  of  the  priests,  covered  with  sackcloth,  unto  Isaiah, 
the  son  of  Amoz,  the  prophet.  While  he  himself  resorted  to  the  temple, 
he  sent  to  ask  the  counsel  and  the  intercessions  of  the  Prophet.  Calvin's 
supposition,  that  Isaiah  was  directed  to  remain  at  home,  amidst  the  general 
alarm  and  lamentation,  as  a  test  of  Hezekiah's  faith,  seems  at  least  unne- 
cessary. Eliakim  and  Shebna  are  again  employed  in  this  case,  as  being 
qualified  to  make  an  exact  report  of  what  had  happened,  and  in  order  to 
put  honour  on  the  prophet  by  an  embassy  of  distinguished  men.  In  the 
place  of  Joah,  he  sends  the  elders  of  the  priests,  i.  e.  the  heads  of  the 
sacerdotal  families.  The  reference  of  elders  to  personal  age,  by  Luther 
(den  altesten  Priestern)  and  Barnes  (the  old  men  of  the  priests),  is  less 
consistent  with  the  context,  which  describes  the  other  messengers  by  their 
official  titles  only,  and  with  the  usage  of  tTCpi,  as  denoting  the  hereditary 
chiefs  of  Levi  no  less  than  the  other  tribes.  The  king  applies  to  the 
prophet  as  the  authorized  expounder  of  the  will  of  God.  Similar  applica- 
tions are  recorded  elsewhere  with  sufficient  frequency  to  show  that  they 
were  customary  and  that  the  prophets  were  regarded  in  this  light.     Thus 


600  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 


Josiah  sent  to  Huldah  (2  Kings  22:  14),  Zedekiah  to  Jeremiah  (Jer.  37  : 
3),  etc.  The  impious  Ahab  required  Micaiah  to  come  to  him,  and  that 
only  at  the  earnest  request  of  King  Jehoshaphat  (I  Kings  22  :  9).  From 
the  mention  of  the  Prophet's  father  two  very  different  but  equally  gratuitous 
conclusions  are  drawn  ;  one  by  Vitringa,  who  infers  that  Isaiah  was  of  noble 
rank;  the  other  by  Hendewerk,  who  infers  that  he  cannot  be  the  author  of 
this  narrative,  as  he  never  would  have  called  himself  the  son  of  Amoz. 
In  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  2)  the  patronymic  follows  the  official 
title,  whereas  here  it  precedes  it.  As  this  last  is  the  usual  collocation, 
Gesenius  appears  to  think  that  it  was  substituted  for  the  other  by  the  later 
writer,  while  Hitzig,  for  the  very  same  reason,  declares  this  to  be  the  original 
reading.  The  plural  n^pts  seems  to  show  that  pu  is  not  here  the  name  of 
the  material  but  of  the  garment  (covered  with  sacks  or  sackcloth  dresses). 
Of  the  king's  prompt  appeal  to  God  in  his  extremity,  Gill  quaintly  says : 
Hezekiah  does  not  sit  doivn  to  consider  Rab  shale  eh?  s  speech,  to  take  it  in 
'pieces,  and  give  an  answer  to  it,  but  he  applies  unto  God. 

V.  3.  And  they  said  unto  him,  Thus  saith  Hezekiah,  A  day  of  anguish 
and  rebuke  and  contempt  (is)  this  day,  for  the  children  are  come  to  the 
birth  (or  to  the  place  of  birth),  and  there  is  not  strength  to  bring  forth. 
The  indirect  construction  of  the  first  words  (that  they  might  say  to  him), 
adopted  by  some  writers,  is  not  only  unnecessary  but  foreign  from  the 
Hebrew  idiom  which,  especially  in  narrative,  prefers  the  most  simple  and 
direct  forms  of  expression.  That  Hezekiah  told  them  thus  to  speak,  is  not 
only  implied  in  their  doing  so,  but  expressly  asserted  by  themselves,  and 
need  not  therefore  be  recorded.  As  the  execution  of  a  command  is  often  left 
to  be  inferred  from  the  command  itself  (ch.  7:3.  8:1,  etc.),  so  here  the 
details  of  the  command  are  to  be  gathered  from  the  record  of  its  execution. 
The  common  version  of  in*  (trouble)  seems  too  weak  for  the  occasion  and 
for  the  figure  in  the  other  clause.  It  is  well  explained  by  Vitringa,  as 
denoting,  not  external  danger  merely,  but  the  complicated  distress,  both  of 
a  temporal  and  spiritual  nature,  in  which  Hezekiah  was  involved  by  the 
threats  and  blasphemies  of  the  Assyrian.  Rebuke  is  applied  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint  (oveidiafiov)  and  some  interpreters  to  the  reproaches  of  Rabshakeh.: 
but  it  is  more  agreeable  to  usage  to  explain  it  as  signifying  the  divine  rebuke 
or  chastisement,  as  in  Ps.  73 :  4.  149:  7.  It  is  characteristic  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  ancient  saints  to  represent  even  the  malignity  of  human 
enemies  as  a  rebuke  from  God.  The  very  same  phrase  (day  of  rebuke)  is 
used  in  the  same  sense  by  Hosea  (5  :  9).  The  verb  from  which  nstao  is 
derived  means  to  treat  with  contempt,  or  more  specifically,  to  reject  with 
scorn.  It  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  God's  rejection  of  his  people  (Deut. 
32:   19.     Jer.  14:  21.     Lam.  2:   6),  and   Hitzig  accordingly  translates 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  601 


the  noun  rejection  or  reprobation  (Verwerfung).  But  as  the  verb  more 
frequently  expresses  man's  contempt  of  God  (e.  g.  ch.  1:4),  interpreters 
are  commonly  agreed  in  making  the  noun  here  mean  blasphemy.  The 
terms  employed  by  Lowth  (contumely)  and  Henderson  (calumny)  are  too 
weak  if  the  reference  be  to  God,  as  the  usage  of  the  verb  seems  to  require. 
The  oral  expression  of  contempt  for  God  is  blasphemy.  The  metaphor  in 
the  last  clause  expresses,  in  the  most  affecting  manner,  the  ideas  of  extreme 
pain,  imminent  danger,  critical  emergency,  utter  weakness,  and  entire 
dependence  on  the  aid  of  others.  (Compare  the  similar  expressions  of  ch. 
26  :  18.)  The  reference  of  the  passage  to  the  interrupted  reformation  of 
religion,  or  to  the  abortive  effort  to  shake  off  the  Assyrian  yoke,  is  equally 
illogical  and  tasteless,  while  the  question,  whether  Judah  is  here  represented 
as  the  mother  or  the  child,  betrays  a  total  incapacity  to  appreciate  the 
strength  and  beauty  of  the  Prophet's  metaphor.  There  is  no  more  need  of 
mooting  such  points  than  if  he  had  simply  said,  the  present  distress  is  like 
the  pains  of  childbirth. 

V.  4.  If  per  adventure  Jehovah  thy  God  will  hear  the  words  of  Rab- 
shalceh,  whom  the  king  of  Assyria  his  master  hath  sent  to  reproach  the 
living  God,  and  will  rebuke  the  xvords  which  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  heard, 
then  shalt  thou  lift  up  a  prayer  for  the  remnant  (that  is  still)  found  (here). 
ibix  may  generally  be  expressed  by  our  perhaps,  and  this  translation  is 
adopted  here  by  most  interpreters,  who  then  take  i  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  clause  in  the  sense  of  therefore.  But  by  retaining  what  appears  to  be 
the  primary  and  proper  force  of  ''Vfil,  as  a  contingent  and  conditional 
expression,  and  making  l  the  usual  sign  of  the  apodosis,  we  may  throw  the 
whole  into  one  sentence,  and  make  more  obvious  the  connexion  of  the 
clauses.  It  was  because  Hezekiah  thought  Jehovah  might  hear,  that  he 
asked  Isaiah's  prayers  in  his  behalf.  The  meaning  given  to  'tyifc  in  this  con- 
struction is  expressed  in  the  English  Version  of  Isai.  47 :  12  and  Jer.  21 : 
2,  and  might  be  substituted  for  perhaps  in  all  the  cases  where  the  latter  is 
employed  to  represent  this  particle,  in  some  with  great  advantage  to  the 
clearness  or  the  force  of  the  expression.  Lowth's  explanation  of  *Vtll  as 
an  optative  particle  (oh  that  Jehovah  thy  God  would  hear)  is  not  justified 
by  usage.  The  doubt  expressed  in  the  first  clause  whether  God  will  hear 
is  viewed  by  some  interpreters  as  inconsistent  with  the  statement  in  the  last 
clause  that  he  has  heard.  To  remove  this  imaginary  discrepancy,  some 
deny  that  the  first  clause  really  expresses  doubt  or  implies  contingency; 
others  allege  that  hear  is  used  in  two  distinct  senses,  that  of  simply  hearing 
and  that  of  regarding  or  attending  to,  and  acting  accordingly.  The  true 
solution  seems  to  be  that  the  preterite  satis  denotes  a  past  time  only  in  rela- 
tion to  the  contingency  expressed  by  *fitK     Perhaps  he  will  hear,  and  then 


602  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

punish  what  he  has  heard.  Both  verbs  may  then  be  understood  in  one  and 
the  same  sense,  either  that  of  simply  hearing,  or  in  that  of  acting  as  if  one 
heard.  The  reproach  and  blasphemy  of  the  Assyrian  consisted  mainly  in 
his  confounding  Jehovah  with  the  gods  of  the  surrounding  nations  (2  Chron. 
32:  19),  in  antithesis  to  whom,  as  being  impotent  and  lifeless,  he  is  here 
and  elsewhere  called  the  living  God.  The  Septuagint,  Vulgate,  and  most 
interpreters,  ancient  and  modern,  make  n*ow  an  infinitive,  connected  by  the 
1  with  cpn,  and  descriptive  of  Rabshakeh's  blasphemies  {and  to  rebuke  me 
in  the  words  etc.).  But  reprove  or  rebuke  is  a  description  wholly  inappro- 
priate to  such  a  speech,  and  the  Hebrew  word  nowhere  means  to  rail  at  or 
revile.  Usage  moreover  would  require  the  particle  to  be  repeated  before 
this  infinitive,  and  Gesenius  (in  his  Commentary)  accordingly  assumes  that 
maim  is  put  for  mainbi.  The  grammatical  and  lexicographical  objections 
may  be  both  avoided  by  taking  main  as  a  preterite  with  the  1  conversive, 
as  in  the  English  Version  {and  will  reprove).  The  a  may  then  be  either 
a  mere  connective  of  the  verb  with  its  object  (rebuke  the  words),  or  denote 
the  occasion  and  the  ground  (rebuke  him  for  the  words  etc.).  Maurer,  who 
successfully  defends  this  construction  (in  his  note  on  2  Kings  19:  4),  in 
order  to  show  that  he  is  not  alone  in  his  opinion,  says,  consentientem  habeo 
Fdsium.  He  might  have  gone  a  little  further  back,  not  only  to  Junius  and 
Tremellius,  but  to  Jonathan,  who  paraphrases  the  expression  thus,  and  will 
take  vengeance  for  the  words  etc.  The  same  construction  is  adopted  by 
Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus.  It  is  also  retained  in  the  modern  English  ver- 
sions, among  which  that  of  Lowth  puts  a  peculiar  sense  upon  the  clause,  by 
making  it  express  a  wish  that  God  would  refute  Rabshakeh's  words,  mean- 
ing no  doubt  by  the  actual  exertion  of  the  power  which  he  called  in  question. 
But  this  specific  meaning  of  main  cannot  be  sustained  by  usage.  To  lift 
up  a  prayer  is  not  simply  to  utter  one,  but  has  allusion  to  two  common 
idiomatic  phrases,  that  of  lifting  up  the  voice,  in  the  sense  of  speaking  loud 
or  beginning  to  speak,  and  that  of  lifting  up  the  heart  or  soul,  in  the  sense 
of  earnestly  desiring.  The  passive  participle  found  is  often  used  in  Hebrew 
to  denote  what  is  present  in  a  certain  place,  or  more  generally  what  is  extant, 
in  existence,  or  forthcoming.  The  meaning  left,  which  is  expressed  in  the 
English  and  some  other  versions,  is  suggested  wholly  by  the  noun  with 
which  the  participle  here  agrees.  As  to  the  application  of  the  whole  phrase, 
it  may  either  be  a  general  description  of  the  straits  or  low  condition  to  which 
the  chosen  people  were  reduced  (as  the  church  at  Sardis  is  exhorted  to 
strengthen  the  things  which  remain,  Rev.  3  :  2),  or  be  more  specifically  un- 
derstood in  reference  to  Judah  as  surviving  the  destruction  of  the  ten  tribes 
(compare  ch.  28  :  5),  or  to  Jerusalem  as  spared  amidst  the  general  desola- 
tion of  Judah  (compare  ch.  1  :  8).  In  either  case,  the  king  requests  the 
prophet  to  pray  for  their  deliverance  from  entire  destruction.     This  appli- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  603 

cation  was  made  to  Isaiah,  not  as  a  private  person,  however  eminent  in 
piety,  but  as  one  who  was  recognized  as  standing  in  an  intimate  relation  to 
Jehovah,  and  as  a  constituted  medium  of  communication  with  him.  In 
like  manner  God  himself  said  to  Abimelech  of  Abraham  :  he  is  a  prophet, 
and  shall  pray  for  thee,  and  thou  shalt  live  (Gen.  20:  7).  In  recognition 
of  this  same  relation,  Hezekiah  twice  says  thy  God,  i.  e.  thine  in  a  peculiar 
and  distinctive  sense.  This  phrase  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  regarded  as  an 
expression  of  despondency,  nor  even  of  humility,  on  Hezekiah's  part,  but 
as  a  kind  of  indirect  explanation  of  his  reason  for  resorting  to  the  Prophet 
at  this  juncture. 

V.  5.  And  the  servants  of  king  Hezekiah  came  to  Isaiah.  This  is  a 
natural  and  simple  resumption  of  the  narrative,  common  in  all  inartificial 
history.  It  affords  no  ground  for  assuming  a  transposition  in  the  text, 
nor  for  explaining  YacHft  in  v.  3  as  a  subjunctive. 

V.  6.  And  Isaiah  said  to  them,  Thus  shall  ye  say  to  your  master,  Thus 
saith  Jehovah,  Be  not  afraid  of  (literally  from  before  or  from  the  face  of) 
the  words  which  thou  hast  heard,  (with)  which  the  servants  of  the  king  of 
Assyria  have  blasphemed  me.  The  last  verb  means  to  rail  at  or  revile,  and 
when  applied  to  God  must  be  translated  by  a  still  stronger  term.  The  word 
translated  servants  is  not  the  same  with  that  in  the  preceding  verse,  but 
strictly  means  young  men  or  boys,  and  is  so  translated  in  the  Targum  and 
Vulgate.  Many  interpreters  regard  it  as  a  contemptuous  description,  and  it 
is  so  translated  by  Hitzig  (Knappen),  Umbreit  (Buben),  Henderson  (strip- 
lings), and  in  other  modern  versions. 

V.  7.  Behold  I  am  putting  (or  about  to  put)  a  spirit  in  him,  and  he 
shall  hear  a  noise,  and  shall  return  to  his  own  land,  and  I  will  cause  him 
to  fall  by  the  sword  in  his  own  land.  Calvin  translates  the  first  clause,  ecce 
apponam  illi  ventum,  and  explains  it  to  mean  that  God  would  carry  him 
away  as  with  a  wind  (compare  ch.  17 :  13).  The  English  Version  renders 
it,  behold  I  will  send  a  blast  upon  him,  meaning  either  a  pestilential  blast  or 
a  destructive  tempest.  Others  understand  by  mi  the  destroying  angel,  or 
an  evil  spirit  by  whom  he  should  be  haunted  and  possessed.  But  most 
interpreters  refer  the  phrase  to  an  effect  to  be  produced  upon  the  mind  of 
the  Assyrian.  Thus  some  explain  rm  to  mean  terror,  others  courage, 
others  a  desire  to  return  home,  others  simply  a  change  of  mind.  The  most 
probable  conclusion  is,  that  it  does  not  denote  a  specific  change,  but  divine 
influence  as  governing  his  movements.  WWV  strictly  means  any  thing 
heard,  and  Luther  accordingly  translates  the  phrase,  he  shall  hear  something. 
Most  writers  understand  this  as  referring  to  the  news  mentioned  in  v.  9 


604  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

below.  But  Henderson  observes  that  this  news,  far  from  driving  Sennacherib 
home,  led  to  a  fresh  defiance  of  Jerusalem.  He  therefore  ingeniously  sug- 
gests, that  this  expression  has  reference  to  the  news  of  the  destruction  of 
his  host  before  Jerusalem  while  he  himself  was  absent.  But  in  the  next 
verse  Rabshakeh  is  said  to  have  rejoined  his  master,  nor  is  there  any  further 
mention  of  an  army  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  though  not 
recorded,  that  Rabshakeh  left  the  troops  behind  him  when  he  went  to  Lib- 
nah,  under  the  command  of  Tartan  or  Rabsaris  (2  Kings  18:  17),  and 
this  is  still  more  probable  if,  as  some  suppose,  Rabshakeh  was  a  mere  embas- 
sador or  herald,  and  Tartan  the  real  military  chief.  If  it  can  be  assumed, 
on  any  ground,  that  the  great  catastrophe  took  place  in  the  absence  of  Sen- 
nacherib, which  would  account  for  his  personal  escape,  then  Henderson's 
explanation  of  rwratt  is  more  satisfactory  than  any  other.  The  modern 
Germans  are  perplexed  by  this  verse.  They  would  gladly  explain  the  pre- 
diction in  the  last  clause  as  a  prophecy  ex  eventu ;  but  in  that  case,  how 
could  the  slaughter  of  the  host  have  been  omitted  ?  The  only  escape  from 
this  dilemma  is  by  the  arbitrary  allegation  that  the  prophecy  was  falsely 
ascribed  to  Isaiah  by  a  later  writer.  If  this  be  so,  we  may  as  well  reject 
the  whole  ;  for  what  assurance  have  we  that  a  writer,  who  fabricates  miracles 
and  prophecies,  is  faithful  in  his  history  of  other  matters  ?  The  inconve- 
niences of  this  attempt  to  save  a  part  while  really  discrediting  the  whole 
are  curiously  apparent  from  Gesenius's  endeavour  to  explain  the  first  clause 
of  this  verse  as  a  sagacious  political  conjecture  and  the  other  as  a  subsequent 
interpolation.  * 

V.  8.  And  Rabshakeh  returned  and  found  the  king  of  Assyria  fight- 
ing against  (i.  e.  besieging)  Libnah,  for  he  heard  that  he  had  decamped 
from  Lachish.  Both  these  towns  were  in  the  plain  or  lowlands  of  Judah 
south-west  of  Jerusalem  (Josh.  15  :  39,  42),  originally  seats  of  Canaanitish 
kings  or  chiefs,  conquered  by  Joshua  (Josh.  12  :  11,  15).  Lachish  was  one 
of  the  fifteen  places  fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  11  :  9),  and  one  of 
the  last  towns  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  34 :  7).  It  was  still  in 
existence  after  the  exile  (Neh.  1 1  :  30).  Libnah  was  a  city  of  the  Levites 
and  of  refuge  (Josh.  21  :  13),  and  appears  to  have  been  nearer  to  Jerusa- 
lem. Henderson  infers  that  Sennacherib  had  conquered  Lachish,  most 
other  writers  that  he  failed  in  the  attempt.  Some  of  the  older  writers 
make  Libnah  an  Egyptian  city,  either  because  one  of  the  stations  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  wilderness  bore  this  name  (Num.  33 :  20),  or  because  Jose- 
phus,  in  order  to  reconcile  Isaiah's  narrative  with  that  of  Herodotus,  repre- 
sents Sennacherib  as  leaving  Lachish  to  besiege  Pelusium.  The  last  verb 
in  this  verse  properly  denotes  the  removal  of  a  tent  or  an  encampment,  an 
idea  happily  expressed  in  Lowth's  translation  by  the  military  term  decamped. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  605 

The  sense  of  this  verb  can  be  here  expressed  in  our  idiom  only  by  the  use 
of  the  pluperfect,  which  form  is  given  by  most  versions  to  the  verb  before 
it  likewise,  and  Hendewerk  extends  it  even  to  the  verbs  of  the  first  clause, 
which  is  wholly  gratuitous. 

V.  9.  And  he  (Sennacherib)  heard  say  concerning  Tirhakah  Icing  oj 
Ethiopia,  He  is  come  forth  to  make  war  with  thee  ;  and  he  heard  (it)  and 
sent  (or  wfien  he  heard  it  he  sent)  messengers  to  Hezekiah,  saying  (what 
follows  in  the  next  verse).     On  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  name  ©ts,  see 
the  notes  on  ch.  18:  1  and  20:  3.     Tirhakah  was  one  of  the  most  famous 
conquerors  of  ancient  times.     Megasthenes,  as  quoted   by  Strabo,  puts  him 
between  Sesostris  and  Nebuchadnezzar.     He  is  also  named  by  Manetho  as 
one  of  the  Ethiopian  dynasty  in  Egypt.     He  was  at  this  time  either  in  close 
alliance  with  that  country,  or  more  probably  in  actual  possession  of  Thebais 
or  Upper  Egypt.     The  fact  that  an  Ethiopian  dynasty  did  reign  there,  is 
attested  by  the  ancient  writers,  and  confirmed  by  still  existing  monuments. 
The   Greek  forms  of  the   name  (Taqay.6g,  Tdoxog,  TtQxav)    vary  but  little 
from  the  Hebrew.     Barnes  and   some  of  the  older  writers  suppose  that 
Sennacherib  had  already  been  driven  out  of  Egypt  by  this  king,  and  was 
now  afraid  of  being  followed   into  Palestine  ;  but  this  conclusion  is  hardly 
warranted  by  the  facts  of  the  history,  sacred  or  profane.     It  is  unnecessary 
to  suppose,  with  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  Tirhakah  had  crossed  the  desert  to 
invade  Assyria,  or  even  with  Rosenmiiller,  that  he  was  already  on  the  fron- 
tier of  Judah.     The   bare  fact  of  his  having  left  his  own  dominions,  with 
the  purpose  of  attacking  Sennacherib,  would  be  sufficient  to  alarm  the  latter, 
especially  as  his  operations  in  the  Holy  Land  had  been  so  unsuccessful.     He 
was  naturally  anxious  therefore  to  induce  Hezekiah  to  capitulate  before  the 
Ethiopians  should   arrive,  perhaps  before  the  Jews  should  hear  of  their 
approach.    That  he  did  not  march  upon  Jerusalem  himself,  is  very  probably 
accounted  for  by  Vitringa,  on  the   ground  that  his   strength  lay  chiefly  in 
cavalry,  which  could  not  be  employed  in  the  highlands,  and  that  the  polior- 
cetic  part  of  warfare  was  little*  known  to  any  ancient  nation  but  the  Romans, 
as  Tacitus  explicitly  asserts.     To  this  may  be  added  the  peculiar  difficulty 
arising  from  the  scarcity  of  water  in  the  environs  of  Jerusalem,  which  has 
been  an  obstacle  to  all  the  armies  that  have  ever  besieged  it.     (See  the 
notes  on  ch.  22  :  9-11.)     Gesenius  supposes  that  symptoms  of  the  plague 
had  begun  to  show  themselves  in  Palestine.     Instead  of  ^5  before  Tirhakah, 
the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  9)  has  ^>K,  which  is  the  more  remarkable 
because  the  latter  particle  is  represented  by  some  critics  as  a  favourite  of 
the  copyist  or  later  writer,  to  whom   they  ascribe  this  portion  of  Isaiah. 
Instead  of  the  second  heard,  the  parallel  passage  has  he  returned,  which, 
according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  may  qualify  the  next  verb  (sent) 


606  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

by  giving  it  the  sense  of  sent  again.  This,  which  certainly  yields  an  appro- 
priate meaning,  is  restored  by  Lowth  in  this  place  as  the  true  text,  while 
Gesenius  and  the  later  German  writers,  who  are  usually  bold  enough  in 
critical  conjecture,  choose  in  this  case  to  regard  the  reading  in  Isaiah  as  a 
tautology  of  the  later  writer.  Yet  the  variation  is  precisely  such  as  one 
writer  would  be  apt  to  make  in  recording  the  same  matter  twice. 

V.  10.  Thus  shall  ye  say  to  Hezekiah,  Icing  of  Judah,  Let  not  thy 
God  deceive  thee,  in  whom  thou  trustest,  saying,  Jerusalem  shall  not  be 
given  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria.  This  recognition  of  Hezekiah's 
royal  dignity,  of  which  Rabshakeh  seemed  to  take  no  notice,  if  significant 
at  all,  as  some  interpreters  imagine,  may  be  accounted  for  upon  the  ground, 
that  in  this  message  the  design  of  the  Assyrian  was  not  to  destroy  the  peo- 
ple's confidence  in  Hezekiah,  but  the  king's  own  confidence  in  God.  For 
the  same  reason,  Sennacherib's  blasphemy  is  much  more  open  and  direct 
than  that  of  Rabshakeh.  The  word  saying  may  be  referred  either  to  Heze- 
kiah or  to  God.  The  English  Version  makes  the  last  construction  necessary, 
by  changing  the  collocation  of  the  words  ;  but  Luther,  Gesenius,  and  many 
others  understand  the  sense  to  be,  in  whom  thou  trustest,  saying.  This  is 
in  fact  entitled  to  the  preference,  on  the  ground  that  nais  is  the  nearest 
antecedent.  On  the  whole,  it  is  best,  in  a  case  so  doubtful,  to  retain  the 
Hebrew  collocation  with  all  its  ambiguity.  The  word  surrendered,  used  by 
Henderson  in  this  verse,  is  not  only  less  simple  than  the  common  version 
given,  but  confines  the  clause  too  strictly  to  the  act  of  the  besieged,  instead 
of  making  it  at  least  include  the  act  of  God  himself,  as  the  protector  of 
Jerusalem 

V.  11.  Behold,  thou  hast  heard  what  the  kings  of  Assyria  have  done 
to  all  the  lands,  by  utterly  destroying  them,  and  thou  shalt  be  delivered! 
The  interjection  behold  appeals  to  these  events  as  something  perfectly  noto- 
rious ;  as  if  he  had  said,  see  what  has  happened  to  others,  and  then  judge 
whether  thou  art  likely  to  escape.  The  pronoun  thou,  in  the  first  clause, 
not  being  necessary  to  the  sense,  is,  according  to  analogy,  distinctive  and 
emphatic,  and  may  be  explained  to  mean,  thou  at  least  hast  heard,  if  not 
the  common  people.  In  the  last  clause,  the  same  pronoun  stands  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  other  kings  or  kingdoms  who  had  been  destroyed.  This  clause 
is,  in  most  versions,  rendered  as  an  interrogation,  but  is  properly  an  excla- 
mation of  contemptuous  incredulity.  All  the  lands  may  be  either  an  ellip- 
tical expression  for  all  the  lands  subdued  by  them,  or,  which  is  more  in 
keeping  with  the  character  of  the  discourse,  a  hyperbolical  expression  of 
the  speaker's  arrogance.  wnnn*>  strictly  means  to  doom  them,  or  devote 
them  irrevocably  to  destruction,  but  in  usage  commonly  includes  the  idea  of 


/ 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  607 

execution  as  well  as  of  design.  (Compare  the  note  on  ch.  11  :  15.)  From 
the  mention  of  the  king*  of  Assyria  in  the  plural,  some  writers  take  occasion 
to  accuse  Rabshakeh  of  intending  to  arrogate  the  glory  of  these  conquests 
to  Sennacherib  exclusively,  whereas  the  latter  did  not  dare  to  do  so  in  ad- 
dressing Hezekiah.  But  others,  with  more  probability,  infer  that  the  singu- 
lar form,  employed  by  Rabshakeh,  is  itself  to  be  understood  collectively, 
like  Icing  of  Babylon  in  the  fourteenth  chapter. 

i 

V.  12.  Did  the  gods  of  the  nations  deliver  them,  which  my  fathers 
destroyed,  (to  wit)  Gozan,  and  Haran,  and  Rezeph,  and  the  children  of 
Eden  which  is  (or  who  were)  in  Telassar  1  Here  again  the  collocation  of 
the  words  makes  the  construction  doubtful,  though  the  general  sense  is  clear. 
nnix  may  either  be  referred  to  lands  in  the  preceding  verse  (the  masculine 
form  being  then  a  license,  or  perhaps  a  sign  that  by  the  lands  we  are  to 
understand  the  people  who  inhabited  them),  or  to  vibst,  or  to  d*1^,  or  it  may 
be  connected  with  ^ek  in  the  sense  of  those  whom,  which  appears  to  be 
preferred  by  Hitzig.  The  construction  then  is,  did  the  gods  of  the  nations 
deliver  those  whom  my  fathers  destroyed!  With  respect  to  the  places 
mentioned  in  the  second  clause,  all  that  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  just 
understanding  of  the  sentence,  is  that  they  were  well  known,  both  to  speaker 
and  hearer,  as  Assyrian  conquests.  The  difficulty  of  identifying  some  of 
them  affords  an  incidental  argument  in  favour  of  the  antiquity  and  genuine- 
ness of  the  passage.  Gozan  is  probably  the  modern  Kaushan,  the  Gauza- 
nitis  of  Ptolemy,  a  region  of  Mesopotamia,  situated  on  the  Chaboras,  to 
which  a  portion  of  the  ten  tribes  wefe  transferred  by  Shalmaneser.  Haran 
was  a  city  of  Mesopotamia,  where  Abraham's  father  died,  the  Carrae  of  the 
Romans,  and  famous  for  the  great  defeat  of  Crassus.  Rezeph,  a  common 
name  in  oriental  geography,  here  denotes  probably  the  Rhessapha  of  Pto- 
lemy, a  town  and  province  in  Palmyrene  Syria.  Eden  means  pleasure  or 
delight,  and  seems  to  have  been  given  as  a  name  to  various  places.  Having 
been  thus  applied  to  a  district  in  the  region  of  Mount  Lebanon,  the  native 
Christians  have  been  led  to  regard  that  as  the  site  of  the  terrestrial  paradise. 
Equally  groundless  are  the  conclusions  of  some  learned  critics  as  to  the 
identity  of  the  place  here  mentioned  with  the  garden  of  Eden.  In  Isaiah 
51 :  3,  the  reference  is  not  to  a  country  well  known  and  distinguished  for 
its  fertility  (Barnes),  but  to  the  garden  of  Eden  as  a  matter  of  history. 
Such  allusions  prove  no  more,  as  to  the  site  of  the  garden,  than  the  similar 
allusions  of  modern  orators  and  poets  to  any  delightful  region  as  an  Eden  or 
a  Paradise.  Even  the  continued  application  of  the  name,  in  prose,  as  a 
geographical  term,  proves  no  more  than  the  use  of  such  a  name  as  Mount 
Pleasant  in  American  geography.  The  inference,  in  this  place,  is  especially 
untenable,  because  the  word  sons  or  children,  prefixed  to  Eden,  leaves  it 


608  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

doubtful  whether  the  latter  is  the  name  of  a  place  at  all,  and  not  rather  that 
of  a  person,  whose  descendants  were  among  the  races  conquered  by  Assyria. 
The  relative  pronoun  may  agree  grammatically  either  with  sons  or  Eden, 
and  the  form  of  the  verb  to  be  supplied  must  be  varied  accordingly.  Tel- 
assar,  which  Gesenius  thinks  may  be  identical  with  the  Ellasar  of  Gen. 
14:  1,  where  it  is  substituted  for  the  latter  by  the  Targum  of  Jerusalem, 
appears  to  be  analogous  in  form  to  the  Babylonian  names,  Tel-abib,  Tel- 
melah,  Tel-hasha,  in  all  which  tel  means  hill  and  corresponds  to  the  English 
mount  in  names  of  places. 

V.  13.    Where  is  the  king  of  Hamath,  and  the  king  of  Arpad,  and  the 
king  of  the  city  Sepharvaim,  Hena  and  Ivvah  ?    The  question  implies  that 
they  were  nowhere,  or  had  ceased  to  be.     The  first  three  names  occur  in 
the  same  order  in  Rabshakeh's  speech  (ch.  36 :  19),  and  the  remaining  two 
also  in  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  18:  34).     As  the  love  of  uniformity 
and  assimilation  here  betrayed  is  on  the  part  of  the  pretended  older  writer, 
the  German  critics  have  discreetly  overlooked  it.     Of  Hena  nothing  what- 
ever is  known,  and  of  Ivvah  only  that  it  may  be  identical  with  the  Avva  of 
2  Kings  17  :  24,  from  which  Assyrian  colonists  were  transferred  to  Samaria. 
The  absence  of  all  further  trace  of  these  two  places,  and  the  peculiar  form 
of  the  names,  led  J.  D.  Michaelis  to  follow  Symmachus  and  Jonathan  in 
making  both  words  verbs  or  verbal  nouns,  implying  that  the  kings  just  men- 
tioned had  been  utterly  subverted  and  destroyed.     But  this  interpretation, 
although  highly  plausible  in  this  one  case,   is  much  less  natural,  if  not 
wholly  inadmissible,  in  2  Kings  18:  34.     It  would  be  easy  to  affirm,  no 
doubt,  that  the  writer  of  the  latter  passage  misunderstood  the  one  before  us  ; 
but  from  this  suggestion  even  Gesenius  and  his  followers  are  precluded  by 
their  foregone  conclusion  that  the  text  in  Kings  is  the  more  ancient  of  the 
two.     Another  explanation  of  these  words  is  that  suggested  by  Luzzatto, 
who  regards  them  as  the  names  of  the  deities  worshipped  at  Hamath,  Arpad, 
and  Sepharvaim,  and  takes  "j^e  in  the  sense  of  idol  or  tutelary  god,  which 
last  idea  is  as  old  as  Clericus.     This  ingenious  hypothesis  Luzzatto  endea- 
vours to  sustain  by  the  analogy  of  Adrammelech  and  Anammelech  the  gods 
of  Sepharvaim  (2  Kings  17 :  31),  the  second  of  which  names  he  regards  as 
essentially  identical  with  Hena.     In  favour  of  this  exposition,  besides  the 
fact  already  mentioned  that  the  names,  as  names  of  places,  occur  nowhere 
else,  it  may  be  ujged  that  it  agrees  not  only  with  the  context  in  this  place, 
but  also  with  2  Kings  18:  34,  in  which  the  explanations  of  the  words  as 
verbs  or  nouns  is  inadmissible.    This  explanation,  and  the  grounds  on  which 
it  rests,  are  at  least  entitled  to  a  fair  comparison  with  that  first  given,  as  the 
one  approved  by  most  interpreters.    Musculus  understands  the  dual  form  of 
Sepharvaim  as  denoting  that  it  consisted  of  two  towns,  perhaps  on  different 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  609 

sides  of  the  Euphrates,  and  that  Uena  and  Ivvah  were  the  distinctive  names 
of  these.  The  particular  mention  of  the  city  Sepharvaim,  and  the  construc- 
tion of  that  word  with  b,  are  peculiarities  not  easily  accounted  for.  The 
substitution  of  mx  for  1^  (2  Kings  19:  13)  is  of  course  ascribed  by  Gese- 
nius  and  Knobel  to  the  later  writer's  fondness  for  exact  uniformity,. his  own 
violations  of  it  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

V.  14.  And  Hezelciah  took  the  letters  from  the  hand  of  the  messengers, 
and  read  it,  and  went  up  (to)  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  Hezelciah  spread 
it  before  Jehovah.  As  nothing  had  been  previously  said  respecting  letters, 
we  must  either  suppose  that  the  preceding  address  was  made  not  orally  but 
in  writing,  or  that  both  modes  of  communication  were  adopted.  The  latter 
is  most  probable  in  itself,  and  agrees  best  with  the  statement  in  2  Chr.  32  : 
17,  that  besides  the  speeches  which  his  servants  spake  against  the  Lord  God 
and  against  his  servant  Hezekiah,  Sennacherib  wrote  letters  to  rail  on  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel  and  to  speak  against  him.  The  singular  pronoun  (it), 
referring  to  the  plural  antecedent  (letters),  is  explained  by  David  Kimchi 
distributively,  as  meaning  every  one  of  them ;  by  the  Targum,  as  meaning 
simply  one  of  them,  i.  e.  according  to  Joseph  Kimchi,  the  one  that  contained 
the  blasphemy.  Luzzatto  supposes  that  it  was  customary  to  send  duplicates 
of  the  same  letter,  as  the  modern  Samaritans  did  in  their  correspondence 
with  Job  Ludolf,  and  that  Hezekiah,  though  he  took  both  or  all,  had  no 
occasion  to  read  more  than  one  of  them.  This  is  certainly  ingenious  and 
plausible ;  but  perhaps  the  most  satisfactory  explanation  is,  that  D"nso,  like 
the  Latin  literae,  had  come  to  signify  a  single  letter,  and  might  be  therefore 
treated  indiscriminately  either  as  a  singular  or  plural  form.  This  is  the 
more  probable,  because  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  Sennacherib  would 
write  more  than  one  letter  to  Hezekiah  on  this  one  occasion,  unless  in  the 
way  suggested  by  Luzzatto,  which  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity  or 
evidence.  That  he  wrote  at  the  same  time  to  the  chief  men  or  the  people, 
is  an  arbitrary  and  improbable  assumption,  and  even  supposing  that  he  did, 
why  should  Hezekiah  be  described  as  receiving  all  the  letters?  Some  ver- 
sions wholly  disregard  the  difference  of  number.  Thus  the  Septuagint  and 
Luther  make  both  noun  and  pronoun  singular,  while  Calvin  and  the  Vulgate 
make  both  plural.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  14)  removes  all 
appearance  of  irregularity  by  reading  them  instead  of  it.  This  is  so  glaring 
an  exception  to  the  sweeping  allegation  of  a  constant  disposition,  in  the  text 
before  us,  to  remove  anomalies  and  seeming  incongruities,  that  Gesenius  is 
under  the  necessity  of  finding  some  expedient  for  the  vindication  of  his  dar- 
ling theory.  This  he  plausibly  accomplishes  by  saying,  that  as  both  texts 
have  the  singular  form  spread  it  in  the  other  clause,  the  later  writer  chose 
to  assimilate  the  phrase  in  question  to  this,  and  not  to  the  preceding  plural 

39 


610  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

| 

noun.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the  ingenious  special  pleader, 
that  the  last  it  needs  as  much  to  be  explained  as  the  first,  and  that  such  a 
copyist  as  he  supposes,  instead  of  saying  read  it  because  he  was  going  to 
say  spread  it  afterwards,  would  naturally  first  say  read  them,  and  then  say 
spread  them  for  the  sake  of  uniformity.  Such  explanations  appear  almost 
puerile  compared  with  the  obvious  and  simple  supposition  of  two  draughts 
or  copies  by  the  self-same  writer.  Another  characteristic  observation  of 
Gesenius  on  this  verse  is,  that  Hezekiah  must  have  spread  the  letter  in  the 
temple  in  order  to  let  Jehovah  read  it  from  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  that 
accordingly  in  v.  10,  he  is  called  upon  to  open  his  eyes,  which  he  says 
reminds  him  of  the  praying  machines  of  Thibet.  This  specimen  of  exe- 
getical  wit  is  eagerly  caught  up  and  repeated  by  later  and  inferior  writers. 
The  spreading  of  the  letter  before  God  is  supposed  by  Clericus  to  have 
been  designed  to  excite  the  feelings  and  the  prayers  of  the  people,  by 
Calvin  to  affect  the  feelings  of  the  king  himself.  It  seems,  however, 
to  have  been  no  studied,  calculated  movement,  but  a  natural  expression 
of  anxiety  and  trust  in  God,  as  a  protector  and  a  confidential  friend,  a  state 
of  mind  which  to  an  infidel  must  needs  appear  ridiculous.  As  any  man 
would  carry  an  open  letter,  which  troubled  or  perplexed  him,  to  a  friend 
for  sympathy  and  counsel,  so  the  pious  king  spreads  this  blasphemous  epistle 
before  God,  as  the  occasion  and  the  subject  of  his  prayers.  Josephus  says 
he  left  it  afterwards  rolled  up  in  the  temple,  of  which  there  is  no  record  in 
the  narrative  before  us.  He  also  says  that  Hezekiah  lay  prostrate,  in  the 
Jewish  manner,  in  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  from  which  it  might  seem  that 
he  took  inoifi^  in  the  sense  o(  stretched  himself ,  which  would  be  ungramma- 
tical  and  contrary  to  usage.  But  Vitringa  is  no  doubt  correct  in  his  opinion, 
that  Josephus  had  no  reference  to  this  word,  but  to  the  signs  of  mourning 
mentioned  in  the  first  and  second  verses,  with  which  he  would  naturally 
associate  prostration  as  their  usual  accompaniment.  (See  for  example  1  Chr. 
21 :  16.) 

V.  15.  And  Hezekiah  prayed  to  Jehovah,  saying  {what  foilows  in  the 
next  verse).  Hendewerk  observes  that  this  mode  of  proceeding  was  char- 
acteristic of  a  person  more  like  David  in  devotion  than  in  energy  and  enter- 
prise. With  a  far  superior  appreciation  of  the  good  king's  character,  Gill 
quaintly  says  that,  instead  of  answering  the  letter  himself,  he  prays  the  Lord 
to  answer  it.  Instead  of  to,  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  15)  has 
before  Jehovah. 

V.  16.  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  God  of  Israel,  dwelling  between  (or  sitting 
upon)  the  cherubim,  thou  art  he,  the  God  (i.  e.  the  only  true  God),  thou  alone, 
to  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  ;  thou  hast  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVII.  611 

The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  15)  omits  njtzy,  upon  which  Gesenius 
remarks  that  the  combination  here  used  is  very  common  in  the  prophecies, 
while  it  scarcely  occurs  at  all  in  the  historical  books.  What  can  be  more 
natural,  therefore,  than  that  IsaiaK  should  employ  it  in  the  case  before  us, 
and  the  simple  prose  form  in  the  book  of  Kings  ?  This  is  surely  a  more 
obvious  conclusion  than  the  one  which  Gesenius  draws,  viz.  that  the  later 
copyists  and  compilers  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  altered  the  text 
at  will,  to  make  it  suit  the  customary  form  of  expression  in  their  own  day. 
The  cherubim  were  visible  representations  of  spiritual  beings,  or,  as  Bahr 
and  Hengstenberg  suppose,  of  the  perfection  of  the  creature  in  its  highest 
form.  The  name  is  most  probably  derived  from  --:,  as  a  synonyme  of -ip 
to  approach,  or  as  a  transposition  of  -=-  to  ride,  in  allusion  to  the  angels 
as  the  bearers  of  God's  chariot.  This  last  verb  is  connected  with  the  noun 
in  Ps.  18:  11.  Eichhom's  attempt  to  identify  the  word  with  the  yoimtg  or 
griffins  of  eastern  mythology  has  been  repeated  by  some  later  writers,  but 
with  small  success.  Some  suppose  an  allusion,  in  the  case  before  us,  to 
Jehovah's  riding  on  the  cherubim  (Ps.  18:  11)  or  angels  through  the  air; 
others  to  his  being  enthroned  above  the  material  cherubs  in  the  temple. 
This  sense  is  given  by  Luther  and  the  ancient  versions,  but  Calvin  and 
many  later  writers  understand  him  to  be  here  described  as  dwelling  between 
the  cherubim.  (Compare  Ex.  25 :  22.)  In  either  case,  there  is  allusion  to 
his  manifested  presence  over  the  mercy-seat,  called  by  the  later  Jews  she- 
chinah,  which  word  is  itself  used  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  the  verse 
before  us.  Forerius  translates  the  Hebrew  phrase  without  a  preposition, 
inhabitant  of  the  cherubim,  which  would  seem,  however,  to  describe  God  as 
dwelling  in  the  images,  not  over  them  or  under  the  shadow  of  their  wings. 
The  pronoun  son  is  understood  by  some  as  an  emphatic  or  intensive  addition 
like  the  Latin  ipse :  thou  thyself  (art)  the  God  etc.  Others  regard  it 
as  an  idiomatic  substitute  for  the  copula  or  verb  of  existence,  used  with  all 
the  persons  :  thou  art  the  God  etc.  But  on  the  general  principle  of  adher- 
ing to  the  strict  sense  of  words  where  it  is  possible,  it  is  best  to  translate 
it  thou  (art)  he,  and  to  regard  what  follows  as  explanatory  of  this  pregnant 
and  concise  expression.  The  God  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  is  not 
an  exact  translation  of  the  Hebrew  words,  in  which  the  God  stands  by  itself 
as  an  emphatic  phrase,  meaning  the  only  God,  the  true  God,  and  what  fol- 
lows is  intended  to  suggest  a  contrast  with  the  false  gods  of  the  nations,  hzb 
is  not  simply  of  all,  in  all,  for  all,  or  over  all,  but  with  respect  to  all.  Thou 
art  the  one  true  God,  not  only  with  respect  to  us,  but  with  respect  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth.  The  reason  follows :  because  thou  hast  made  them 
all,  and  not  the  earth  only,  but  the  heavens  also.  All  this  is  indirectly  a 
reply  to  the  Assyrian  blasphemies,  which  questioned  the  almighty  power  of 
Jehovah,  and  put  him  on  a  level  with  the  idols  of  the  heathen.     The  same 


612  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

antithesis  between  the  impotence  of  idols  and  the  power  of  God,  as  shown 
in  the  creation  of  the  world,  occurs  in  Ps.  96:  5  and  Jer.  10:  11. 

V.  17.  Bow  thine  ear,  O  Jehovah,  and  hear ;  open  thine  eyes,  O  Jeho- 
vah, and  see ;  and  hear  all  the  words  of  Sennacherib,  which  he  hath  sent 
(or  who  hath  sent)   to  reproach  the  living  God.     These  expressions  are 
entirely  analogous  to  those  in  many  other  places,  where  God  is  entreated  to 
see  and  hear,  i.  e.  to  act  as  if  he  saw  and  heard.     The  attempt  of  Gesenius 
and  his  followers  to  restrict  them  to  the  reading  of  the  letter  or  the  hearing 
it  read,  neither  requires  nor  deserves  refutation.     Gesenius  also  takes  r^rs  as 
a  singular,  substituted  for  the  plural  *(*p9  of  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings 
19:  16),  through  the  transcriber's  ignorance  of  the   Hebrew  idiom,  which 
always  speaks  of  turning  one  ear,  but  of  opening  both  eyes.     If  this  distinc- 
tion is  as  natural  and  obvious  as  he  represents,  it  is  strange  that  even  a  tran- 
scriber, to  whom  the  Hebrew  was  vernacular,  should  not  have  been  aware 
of  it.     Supposing,  however,  that  Isaiah  wrote  both  narratives,  there  would 
be  nothing  more  surprising  in  his  saying  eyes  in  one  and  eye  in  the  other,  than 
there  is  in  the  coexistence  of  such  forms  as  word  of  God  and  words  of  God, 
his  mercy  and  his  mercies,  where  the  predominance  of  one  form  does  not 
preclude  the  occasional  occurrence  of  the  other.     Gesenius  moreover  did 
not  think  it  necessary  to  inform  his  readers  of  the  fact,  which   Henderson 
has  brought  to  light,  that  more  than  fifty  manuscripts,  and  nearly  twenty 
editions,  have  the  usual  plural  form  yfrt,  an  amount  of  evidence  ten  times 
as  great  as  that  which  Gesenius,  in  other  cases,  thinks  enough  to  justify  the 
boldest  changes  in  the  text.     Still  less  did  he  consider  himself  called  upon 
to  mention,  that  the  common  reading   ^T9  itself  may  be  a   plural  form, 
according  to  analogy,  as  stated  expressly   by  himself  in  his  Lehrgebdude 
(p.  215)  and  his  smaller  Grammar  (<§>  35.  Remark  3).     Least  of  all  did  he 
see  cause  to  state,  that  this  explanation  of  the  form  is  rendered  almost  neces- 
sary here  by  the  parallelism,  because  if  ^315  were  written  instead  of  *ps 
merely  because  of  a  pause  in  the  sentence,  then  ^ajx,  which  occupies  the  very 
same  position  in  the  other  member,  would  be  written  5ja.T» ;  and  as  this  is 
not  the  case,  the  obvious  conclusion  is,  that  the  seghol  in  Sff9  is  the  union- 
vowel  of  a  plural  noun  before  the  suffix,  with  the  ■"  omitted  as  in  Ex.  33  :  13 
and  other  cases  cited  by  Gesenius  in  his  grammars.     The  fact  that  frs  has 
a  stronger  disjunctive  accent  than  *j:tn,  instead  of  weakening  confirms  the 
argument,  because  if  the  former  were  in  pause,  the  structure  of  the  sentence 
would  require  the  latter  to  be  so  too.     What  Gesenius  says  in  reference  to 
the  use  of  the  word  Hosts  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  that  it  throws  light 
upon  other  critical  phenomena,  may  be  applied  with  justice  to  his  own  style 
of  criticism  in  the  case  before  us.     Instead  of  assuming,  as  he  often  does 
without  a  tithe  of  the  same  evidence,  that  "p"1*  is  the  true  text,  or  reflecting 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  613 

that  "^s  itself  may  be  a  plural  according  to  his  own  showing  elsewhere,  and 
must  be  a  plural  according  to  the  favourite  rule  of  parallelism,  he  first  takes 
for  granted  that  it  is  a  singular,  and  then  makes  use  of  it  not  only  as  a  devi- 
ation from  the  older  copy,  but  as  characteristic  of  an  ignorant  and  therefore 
a  later  writer.  For  by  some  strange  process  it  has  been  discovered,  that 
the  later  Hebrew  writers  were  not  only  inferior  in  composition,  but  in  know- 
ledge of  the  idioms  of  the  language,  whereas  in  Greece  and  Rome  the 
decline  of  original  composition  coincided  with  the  rise  and  progress  of  gram- 
matical science.  The  only  end  for  which  these  inconsistencies  are  pointed 
out,  is  that  the  reader  may  correctly  estimate  authoritative  dicta  of  the  same 
kind  elsewhere.  The  simplest  version  of  nbiu  *hdx  is,  who  has  sent.  To 
express  the  idea,  which  he  has  sent,  usage  would  seem  to  require  a  suffix  with 
the  verb,  and  accordingly  we  read  in  2  Kings  19 :  16,  wbir  TO*,  i.  e.  which 
he  has  sent,  referring  irregularly  to  the  plural  words,  or  who  has  sent  him, 
meaning  Rabshakeh,  which  is  the  construction  given  in  the  English  Version 
of  that  passage. 

V.  18.  It  is  true,  O  Jehovah,  the  kings  of  Assyria  have  wasted  all  the 
lands  and  their  land.  The  first  word  in  the  original  is  a  particle  of  conces- 
sion, admitting  the  truth  of  what  Sennacherib  had  said,  so  far  as  it  related 
merely  to  his  conquest  of  the  nations  and  destruction  of  their  idols.  The 
repetition,  lands  and  land,  has  much  perplexed  interpreters.  Vitringa  sup- 
plies nations  or  peoples  before  lands,  as  in  2  Chr.  32 :  13.  Others  suppose 
nWV*  itself  to  be  here  used  in  the  sense  of  nations,  as  the  singular  seems 
sometimes  to  denote  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  or  land.  This  supposition 
would  account  at  the  same  time  for  the  masculine  suffix  in  cms.  Gesenius 
follows  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti  in  giving  this  suffix  a  reflexive  sense, 
or  referring  it  to  the  Assyrians  themselves  {their  own  land).  The  meaning 
then  is  that  they  had  destroyed  not  only  other  countries  but  their  own, 
which  agrees  exactly  with  the  charge  against  the  king  of  Babylon  in  ch. 
14 :  20,  thou  shalt  not  be  joined  with  them  in  burial,  because  thou  hast 
destroyed  thy  land  and  slain  thy  people.  As  this  sense,  however,  is  not  so 
appropriate  here,  where  Hezekiah  is  confirming  what  Sennacherib  himself 
had  said,  it  is  better  to  adopt  one  of  the  other  constructions,  which  brings 
the  sentence  into  strict  agreement,  not  as  to  form  but  as  to  sense,  with  the 
parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  17),  where  we  have  the  unambiguous  term 
nations.  This  is  justly  described  by  Rosenmuller  as  the  easier  construction 
of  the  two,  which  would  militate  against  the  foregone  conclusion  of  the  later 
Germans,  as  to  the  relative  antiquity  and  characteristic  features  of  the  two 
texts.  Gesenius,  therefore,  while  he  grants  that  the  form  of  expression  in 
the  case  before  us  is  harsher  and  more  difficult,  alleges,  with  perverse  inge- 
nuity, that  this  arose  from  the  attempt  to  remove  another  incongruity,  to  wit, 


614  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVII. 

the  application  of  the  verb  :nn  to  persons,  in  avoiding  which  the  copyist 
committed  the  solecism,  larids  and  their  land.  But  this  hypothesis,  besides 
its  fanciful  and  arbitrary  character  as  a  mere  makeshift,  and  its  gratuitous 
assumption  of  the  grossest  stupidity  and  ignorance  as  well  as  inattention  in 
the  writer,  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  emphatic  combination  of  the  same 
verb  and  noun  in  ch.  60:  12.  Even  if  that  were  the  composition  of  a  later 
writer  than  Isaiah,  it  would  prove  that  such  a  writer  could  not  have  been  so 
shocked  at  the  expression  as  to  make  nonsense  of  a  sentence  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  it.  The  reader  will  do  well  to  observe,  moreover,  that 
the  same  imaginary  copyist  is  supposed,  in  different  emergencies,  to  have 
been  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  idioms  of  his  mother  tongue,  and  yet 
extremely  sensitive  to  any  supposed  violation  of  usage.  Such  scruples  and 
such  ignorance  are  not  often  found  in  combination.  A  transcriber  unable 
to  distinguish  sense  from  nonsense  would  not  be  apt  to  take  offence  at  mere 
irregularities  or  eccentricities  in  the  phraseology  or  diction  of  his  author. 

V.  1 9.  And  given  (or  put)  their  gods  into  the  fire — for  they  (were)  no 
gods,  but  wood  and  stone,  the  work  of  men's  hands — and  destroyed  them. 
Most  interpreters  separate  the  clauses  and  translate  bits&pi,  therefore  (or  so) 
they  have  destroyed  them.  But  the  true  construction  seems  to  be  the  one 
proposed  by  Henderson,  who  connects  this  verb  directly  with  the  first  clause, 
and  throws  the  intervening  member  into  a  parenthesis.  Instead  of  the 
peculiar  idiomatic  use  of  the  infinitive  ("i*"1:),  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings 
17  :  18)  has  the  preterite  (^r,5),  a  substitution  of  an  easy  for  a  difficult  con- 
struction so  undeniable  that  Gesenius  can  escape  from  it  only  by  asserting 
that  the  form  here  used  belongs  to  the  later  Hebrew,  an  assertion  which  not 
one  of  his  followers  has  ventured  to  repeat,  while  Hendewerk  flatly  contra- 
dicts it.  Knobel  strangely  imagines  that  Hezekiah  here  accuses  the  Assyrian 
of  impiety  towards  those  whom  he  acknowledged  to  be  gods,  whereas  through- 
out this  verse  and  that  before  it,  he  is  simply  acknowledging  that  Sennacherib 
had  destroyed  the  idols  of  the  nations,  and  assigning  a  reason  for  it,  viz.  that 
they  were  no  gods  but  material  idols.  The  application  of  the  word  gads  to 
the  mere  external  image  is  common  in  profane  as  well  as  sacred  writings, 
and  arises  from  the  fact  that  all  idolaters,  whatever  they  may  theoretically 
hold  as  to  the  nature  of  their  deities,  identify  them  practically  with  the 
stocks  and  stones  to  which  they  pay  their  adorations. 

V.  20.  And  now,  oh  Jehovah  our  God,  save  us  from  his  hand,  and  all 
the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  shall  know,  that  thou  Jehovah  art  alone  (or  that 
thou  alone  art  Jehovah).  The  adverb  now  is  here  used  both  in  a  temporal 
and  logical  sense,  as  equivalent,  not  only  to  at  length,  or  before  it  is  too  late, 
but  also  to  therefore,  or  since  these  things  are  so.     The  fact  that  Sennache- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  615 

rib  had  destroyed  other  nations,  is  urged  as  a  reason  why  the  Lord  should 
interpose  to  rescue  his  own  people  from  a  like  destruction  ;  and  the  fact 
that  he  had  really  triumphed  over  other  gods,  as  a  reason  why  he  should  be 
taught  to  know  the  difference  between  them  and  Jehovah.  The  argument 
or  motive  here  presented,  although  sneered  at  by  the  infidel  interpreters,  is 
not  only  common  in  the  Scriptures,  but  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  a  God. 
The  considerations  which  make  such  a  motive  unbecoming  in  the  case  of 
creatures  are  entirely  inapplicable  to  the  Supreme  Being.  The  requisition 
of  a  sentimental  modesty  on  his  part  only  shows  that  he  who  makes  it  has 
no  higher  conception  of  a  God  than  as  a  vague  sublimation  of  humanity. 
The  construction  of  ~?i*  as  an  optative  (let  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth 
know),  or  a  subjunctive  (that  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  may  know), 
although  admissible,  ought  not  to  be  preferred  to  the  future  proper,  where 
the  latter  yields  a  sense  so  good  in  itself  and  so  well  suited  to  the  context. 
The  last  words  of  the  verse  may  either  mean,  that  thou  Jehovah  art  the  only 
one  (i.  e.  as  appears  from  the  connexion,  the  only  true  God),  or,  that  thou 
alone  art  Jehovah,  with  particular  allusion  to  the  proper  import  of  that  name 
as  signifying  absolute,  eternal,  independent  existence.  The  last  construction 
is  preferred  by  Hitzig ;  but  the  first,  which  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  is  also 
recommended  by  its  more  exact  agreement  with  the  masoretic  accents.  It 
need  scarcely  be  added  that  these  questions  of  construction  do  not  affect  the 
general  sense,  which  is,  that  the  deliverance  of  his  people  from  Sennacherib 
would  prove  Jehovah  to  be  infinitely  more  than  the  gods  of  the  nations 
whom  he  gloried  in  destroying. 

V.  21.  And  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz,  sent  to  Hezekiah,  saying,  Thus 
saith  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  (as  to)  what  thou  hast  prayed  to  me 
(with  respect)  to  Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria,  (the  apodosis  follows  in  the 
next  verse.)  Vitringa's  supposition  that  the  communication  was  in  writing, 
is  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  v.  14,  and  by  the  length  and  metrical  form 
of  the  message  itself.  Knobel  suggests  that  the  messenger  was  probably 
a  younger  prophet.  Why  Isaiah  corresponded  thus  with  Hezekiah,  instead 
of  speaking  with  him  face  to  face,  as  he  did  in  other  cases,  both  before  and 
after  this,  none  of  the  interpreters  have  been  able  to  explain,  except  by 
resolving  it  into  a  positive  command  of  God.  J.  D.  Michaelis  connects  TOW 
with  n^s  in  the  sense  of  /  to  whom  ;  but  this  use  of  the  first  person  in  imme- 
diate combination  with  the  third,  although  not  unexampled,  is  too  rare  to 
be  assumed  without  necessity.  The  same  objection  lies  against  the  expla- 
nation of  ">£X  as  a  conjunction  meaning  as,  whereas,  forasmuch,  or  the  like. 
The  same  essential  meaning  is  obtained  by  making  it  as  usual  a  relative 
pronoun,  construed  adverbially,  a  form  of  speech  which  cannot  be  trans- 
ferred to  our  idiom  without  the  introduction  of  a   preposition.     Gesenius 


616  ISAIAH,   CHAP.   XXXVII. 

regards  it  as  an  idiomatic  pleonasm,  and  accordingly  omits  it  in  his  version, 
which  is  simply,  thou  hast  prayed  etc.  Lowth  follows  several  of  the  ancient 
versions  in  making  it  the  object  of  the  verb  vjim  (I  have  heard)  which  he 
inserts  in  the  text  on  the  authority  of  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19  :  20.) 
This  emendation  would  be  highly  probable  but  for  the  fact  that  the  sacred 
writers  often  intentionally  varied  their  expressions  in  repeating  the  same 
matter,  for  the  proof  and  illustration  of  which  usage  see  Hengstenberg's 
exposition  of  the  fourteenth  and  eighteenth  Psalms  (Commentary,  vol.  I. 
pp.  269,  372).  Be  this  as  it  may,  no  stretch  of  ingenuity  can  make  the 
construction  in  Isaiah  easier  or  more  obvious  than  the  one  in  Kings.  Gese- 
nius  therefore  contents  himself  with  saying  that  the  later  writer  omitted 
insattJ  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  and  yet  he  makes  him  use  tWti  in  a  sense 
wholly  different  from  that  which  it  must  have  if  insa®  were  inserted. 
Another  difference  between  the  two  texts  is  the  use  of  b»  here  in  the  place 
of  bs.  This  agrees  well  enough  with  the  hypothesis  that  bx  is  a  favourite 
of  the  later  writer,  but  not  at  all  with  the  assumption  that  his  changes  were 
intended  to  remove  irregularities  and  make  the  construction  easy,  bx  may 
either  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  Vs  (against)  in  this  connexion,  or  be 
taken  in  the  wider  sense  of  as  to  or  concerning. 

V.  22.  This  is  the  word  which  Jehovah  hath  spolcen  concerning  (or 
against)  him.  The  virgin  daughter  of  Zion  hath  despised  thee,  she  hath 
laughed  thee  to  scorn,  the  daughter  of  Jerusalem  hath  shaken  her  head 
after  thee.  There  is  no  need  of  giving  word  the  sense  of  decree,  or  even 
prophecy.  The  simple  meaning  is  that  what  follows  is  a  revelation  from 
God  in  answer  to  the  vaunting  of  Sennacherib  and  the  prayers  of  Hezekiah. 
The  two  explanations  of  the  preposition  h$t  between  which  interpreters 
appear  to  be  divided,  differ  only  in  extent  and  definiteness.  For  the  mean- 
ing of  the  phrase  "i^x  na,  see  the  note  on  ch.  1:8;  for  the  construction  of 
nVma,  that  on  ch.  23:  12.  As  all  interpreters  agree  that  this  last  word  is 
in  apposition  (as  to  sense)  with  na,  so  Hengstenberg  supposes  the  latter 
to  sustain  the  same  relation  to  yns,  on  which  supposition  the  meaning  of 
the  whole  phrase  is,  the  virgin  daughter  of  Zion,  i.  e.  Zion  considered  as  a 
daughter  and  a  virgin.  It  may  be  a  personification  either  of  the  whole 
church  and  nation,  or  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  which  last  seems  more 
appropriate  in  this  connexion.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Hitzig  understand  the 
figure  of  virginity  as  meaning  that  the  city  was  still  unconquered.  Calvin 
and  Clericus,  with  strange  inattention  to  the  form  of  the  original,  take  virgin 
daughter  of  Zion  as  a  vocative,  and  refer  the  verb  to  the  Assyrian  (he  hath 
despised  thee,  oh  virgin,  etc.),  a  construction  utterly  prohibited,  not  only  by 
the  masculine  form  of  the  pronoun  thee,  which  might  be  differently  pointed 
but  by  the  feminine  termination  of  the  verbs,  which  is  a  necessary  part  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  617 

the  text.  The  sense  of  "pinx  is  not  merely  at  thee,  but  after  thee  as  thou 
fleest.  Henderson  has  behind  thee,  which  is  only  defective  in  not  suggest- 
ing the  idea  of  his  flight.  Luzzatto  endeavours,  but  without  success,  to 
explain  the  shaking  of  the  head  as  a  gesture  of  compassion  or  condolence, 
even  where  it  is  combined  with  other  tokens  of  contempt.  His  argument 
rests  wholly  on  a  supposititious  meaning  of  the  cognate  TO.  Maurer  and 
Knobel  understand  by  shaking  a  derisive  nodding  or  vertical  motion  of  the 
head  accompanied  by  laughter.  Gesenius  supposes  that  a  wagging  or  lateral 
motion  of  the  head,  although  not  used  by  us  for  such  a  purpose,  may  have 
been  common  as  a  gesture  of  derision  in  the  east,  the  rather  as  such  signs 
are  to  a  great  extent  conventional,  and  as  other  derisive  gestures  mentioned 
in  the  Scriptures,  such  as  clapping  the  hands,  are  equally  foreign  from  our 
habits  and  associations.  Hitzig  supposes  that  the  shaking  of  the  head,  with 
the  Hebrews  as  with  us,  was  a  gesture  of  negation,  and  that  the  expression 
of  scorn  consisted  in  a  tacit  denial  that  Sennacherib  had  been  able  to  effect 
his  purpose.  Thus  understood,  the  action  is  equivalent  to  saying  in  words, 
no,  no  !  i.  e.  he  could  not  do  it !  A  similar  explanation  of  this  gesture  is 
given  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  Commentary  on  Psalm  22 :  8.  The  meaning 
of  the  whole  verse,  divested  of  its  figurative  dress,  is  that  the  people  of  God 
might  regard  the  threats  of  the  Assyrian  with  contempt. 

V.  23.  Whom  hast  thou  reproached  and  reviled,  and  against  whom  hast 
thou  raised  {thy)  voice,  and  lifted  thine  eyes  (on)  high  towards  (or  against) 
the  Holy  One  oj  Israel  1  This  is  equivalent  to  saying,  dost  thou  know  who 
it  is  that  thou  revilest?  To  raise  the  voice  may  simply  mean  to  speak,  or 
more  emphatically  to  speak  boldly,  perhaps  with  an  allusion  to  the  literal 
loudness  of  Rabshakeh's  address  to  the  people  on  the  wall  (ch.  36:  13). 
The  construction  loftiness  of  eyes  (meaning  pride)  is  inconsistent  both  with 
the  pointing  and  accentuation,  nna  is  a  noun  of  place,  here  construed  as 
an  adverb,  and  in  sense  equivalent  to  heavenward  or  towards  heaven.  The 
act  described  is  that  of  looking  up  to  heaven  as  he  uttered  his  blasphemies. 
The  English  and  many  other  versions  make  the  last  words  of  the  second 
clause  an  answer  to  the  foregoing  question.  {Against  whom  etc?  Against 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel).  This  construction  is  retained  by  Gesenius,  but 
Ewald  carries  the  interrogation  through  the  verse,  and  renders  i,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  last  clause,  that  or  so  that,  while  Hitzig  makes  the  whole 
of  that  clause  an  exclamation.  This  construction  is  more  natural  than  that 
which  makes  the  answer  begin  in  the  middle  of  the  last  clause,  instead  of 
the  beginning  of  the  next  verse,  where  he  is  expressly  charged  with  blas- 
phemy against  Jehovah. 

V.  24.  By  the  hand  of  thy  servants  hast  thou  reproached  the  Lord  and 
said,  With  the  multitude  of  my  chariots  (or  cavalry)  I  have  ascended  the 


618 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVII. 


height  of  mountains,  the  sides  of  Lebanon,  and  I  will  cut  down  the  loftiness 
of  its  cedars  and  the  choice  of  its  firs  (or  cypresses),  and  I  will  reach  its 
extreme  height  (literally,  the  height  of  its  extremity),  its  garden-forest 
(literally,  the  garden  of  its  forest).  This  may  be  regarded  either  as  the 
substance  of  another  message  actually  sent  by  Sennacherib,  or  as  a  transla- 
tion of  his  feelings  and  his  conduct  into  words.  By  the  hand  may  then 
mean  simply  through  (as  in  ch.  20:  1),  or  refer  par:icularly  to  the  letters 
mentioned  in  v.  14.  The  parallel  passage  has  -psx^E  thy  messengers,  a 
variation  just  as  likely  to  be  made  by  the  original  writer  as  by  a  later  copy- 
ist. The  textual  reading  in  that  passage  has  sa->2  instead  of  3"0,  which  is 
given  in  the  margin.  Gesenius  points  the  former  sina  and  translates  the 
whole  phrase  with  my  chariot  of  chariots  (33*1  being  often  used  collectively) 
i.e.  my  innumerable  chariots  (compare  Nah.  3 :  17).  Ewald  points  it 
ab^a,  by  the  driving  of  my  chariots.  The  reading  in  the  text  before  us, 
and  in  the  margin  of  the  other,  is  of  course  regarded  as  an  attempt  to  sim- 
plify and  clear  up  an  obscure  expressi  n,  a  tendency  diligently  noted  when 
it  shows  itself  on  the  right  or  rather  the  convenient  side.,  Vitringa  gives  to 
a?^5  here  as  in  ch.  21  :  7,  the  sense  of  cavalry ;  but  other  interpreters  ap- 
pear to  be  agreed,  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason,  in  this  case,  for  depart- 
ing from  the  usual  and  proper  sense,  especially  as  little  would  be  gained  by 
it,  lofty  and  rugged  mountains  being  scarcely  more  accessible  to  horses  than 
to  chariots.  Some  understand  the  sides  of  Lebanon  strictly  as  denoting  its 
acclivities ;  others  with  more  probability  give  it  the  peculiar  idiomatic  sense 
of  extremities,  whether  of  length,  depth,  or  height,  the  latter  being  here 
required  by  the  connexion.  (See  the  note  on  ch.  14:  13.)  tTte  raip  is 
explained  by  Clericus  to  mean  its  standing  cedars,  but  by  other  inter- 
preters its  lofty  cedars,  as  the  parallel  expr.s  ions  mean  its  choice  firs  or 
cypresses.  (Compare  the  note  on  ch.  14  :  8.)  The  explanation  of  Carmel&s 
a  proper  name  can  only  be  admitted  on  the  supposition  that  the  pronouns 
in  this  clause  refer  to  Hezekiah  or  to  Judah.  If  on  the  contrary  they  refer 
to  Lebanon,  which  seems  the  only  natural  construction,  bs-o  must  be  taken 
in  its  primary  and  proper  sense  of  fruitful  field,  vineyard,  garden,  orchard, 
or  the  like.  It  is  here  combined  with  forest,  either  for  the  purpose  of 
describing  the  cedar  groves  of  Lebanon  as  similar  to  parks  and  orchards,  or  of 
designating  the  spot  where  the  cultivated  slope  of  the  mountain  is  gradually 
changed  into  a  forest.  It  was  long  supposed  that  the  only  cedar  grove  of 
Lebanon  was  the  one  usually  visited  near  the  highest  summit  of  the  range; 
but  in  1805,  Seetzen  discovered  two  others  of  greater  extent,  and  the  Ameri- 
can missionaries  have  since  found  many  trees  in  different  parts  of  the  moun- 
tain. (Robinson's  Palestine.  III.  440.)  Instead  of  "isp  oi-na  the  parallel 
passage  has  nip  yiVo  (his  extreme  abode),  a  variation  both  in  sense  and  form, 
which  Gesenius  and  his  followers  think  decidedly  more  poetical  and  difficult 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  619 

than  that  before  us,  and  of  course  more  ancient,  as  the  inference  happens 
in  this  case  to  favour  the  foregone  conclusion.  Such  assertions  are  best 
answered  by  a  counter  assertion,  in  itself  at  least  as  plausible,  that  the 
diversity  is  just  such  as  might  have  been  expected  in  the  case  of  one  and 
the  same  writer.  The  reference  to  Lebanon  in  this  verse  is  by  many  inter- 
preters literally  understood  ;  but  why  should  the  Assyrian  attempt  or  even 
threaten  so  absurd  a  passage  with  his  mounted  troops,  when  a  shorter  and 
easier  one  lay  open  to  him  ?  Others  regard  Lebanon  as  a  poetical  descrip- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  or  of  Judah,  or  of  Israel  in  general, 
with  special  mention  of  Jerusalem,  or  the  temple,  or  the  tcwer  of  Lebanon, 
as  its  extreme  height  or  abode.  But  if  we  take  into  consideration  the  whole 
context,  and  the  strongly  hyperbolical  expressions  of  the  other  messages  and 
speeches  of  Sennacherib,  it  will  be  found  most  natural  to  understand  this 
verse  as  a  poetical  assertion  of  the  speaker's  power  to  overcome  all  obstacles. 

V.  25.  J  have  digged  and  drunk  water,  and  I  will  dry  up  with  the  sole 
of  my  feet  (literally,  steps)  all  the  streams  of  Egypt.     As  in  the  preceding 
verse,  he  begins  with  the  past  tepe  and  then  changes  to  the  future,  to 
denote  that  he  had  begun  his  enterprise  successfully  and  expected  to  con- 
clude it  triumphantly.     The  confusion  of  the  tenses,  as  all  futures  or  all 
preterites,  is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  the  translation  of  them  all  as  presents  is 
at  least  unnecessary,  when  a  stricter  version  not  only  yields  a  good  sense, 
but  adds  to  the  significance  and  force  of  the  expressions.     According  to 
Luzzatto,  *>ip  means  to  spring  up  or  gush  forth  as  a  fountain,  and  the  verse 
is  a  poetical  description  of  the  conqueror  under  the  figure  of  a  stream  which 
drinks  in   its  tributary  waters  and  exhausts  all  other  rivers  in  its  course. 
This  last  expression  the  ingenious  rabbin  wisely  disguises  in  a  paraphrase, 
as  he  could  scarcely  have  found  any  reader,  Jew  or  Gentile,  who  would 
tolerate  the  figure  of  one  stream  drying  up  others  with  the  sole*  of  its  feet. 
Another  original  interpretation  of  the  verse  is  that  proposed  by  Barnes,  who 
gives  the  usual  explanation  of  the  first  word,  but  applies  that  clause  to  the 
supply  of  the  Assyrian  cities  with  water.     The  obvious  objections  to  this 
exposition  are,  that  it  does  not  follow,  because  digging  of  wells  is  a  public 
benefit  in  desert  countries  and  among  nomadic  tribes,  that  the  supply  of  a 
great  kingdom  like  Assyria  would  be  so  described  ;  but  secondly  and  chiefly, 
that   the   parallelism   and  indeed   the  whole  connexion  of  the  clauses  is 
destroyed   by  this   interpretation  of  the  first.     What  coherence   is   there 
between   the  assertions,   that  he  had  supplied  his  own  kingdom  with  wa- 
ter, and  that  his  army  was  numerous  enough  to  exhaust  the  streams  of 
Egypt?    Vitringa  understands  the  first  clause  as  meaning  that  he  had  sated 
his  desire  of  conquest,  he  had  sought  and  found,  he  had  dug  for  water  and 
slaked  his  thirst.     The  objection  to  this  interpretation  is,  not  that  it  makes 


620  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

the  first  clause  figurative,  which  agrees  exactly  with  the  style  of  the  whole 
passage,  but  that  it  makes  it  too  indefinite  to  match  the  other  clause  pre- 
cisely. If  the  latter,  as  all  except  Luzzatto  se^m  to  grant,  describes  the 
march  of  a  great  army,  there  is  a  natural  presumption  that  the  other  has 
respect  to  the  same  subject.  The  best  interpretation,  therefore,  on  the  whole, 
is  that  which  understands  the  verse  to  mean  that  no  difficulties  or  privations 
could  retard  his  march,  that  where  there  was  no  water  he  had  dug  for  it 
and  found  it,  and  that  where  there  was  he  would  exhaust  it,  both  assertions 
implying  a  vast  multitude  of  soldiers.  The  drying  up  of  the  rivers  with  the 
soles  of  the  feet  is  understood  by  Vitringa  as  an  allusion  to  the  Egyptian 
mode  of  drawing  water  with  a  tread-wheel  (Deut.  11 :  10).  Others  suppose 
it  to  mean,  that  they  would  cross  the  streams  dry-shod,  which  does  not  seem 
to  be  a  natural  explanation  of  the  words.  Bochart  understands  the  sense 
to  be  that  the  dust  raised  by  their  march  would  choke  and  dry  up  rivers. 
In  favour  of  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  drawing  out  of  water,  is  the  obvious 
reference  to  digging  and  drinking  in  the  other  clause.  This  appears  to  pre- 
clude the  explanation  of  the  language  as  a  boast  that  the  elements  themselves 
were  subject  to  him,  not  unlike  that  whiqji  Claudian  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
Alaric.  Suhsidere  nostris  stib  pedibus  monies,  arescere  vidimus  amnes.  Even 
there,  however,  the  literal  and  figurative  meanings  seem  to  run  into  each 
other,  as  the  poet  adds  a  few  lines  lower,  fregi  Alpes,  galeis  Padum  victri- 
cibus  hausL  That  such  hyperboles  were  wont  to  be  applied  to  the  oriental 
armies,  we  may  learn  from  Juvenal.  Credimus  altos  defecisse  amnes,  epota- 
que  flumitia  Mtdo.  The  old  interpretation  of  iise  •n'w,  as  meaning  the 
waters  of  Jerusalem  while  in  a  state  of  siege,  or  the  moats  of  fortified  places 
in  general,  is  now  universally  abandoned  for  the  meaning  which  the  same 
words  have  in  ch.  16 :  6.   (See  above,  p.  350.) 

V.  26.  Hast  thou  not  heard  1  From  afar  I  have  done  it,  from  the  days 
of  old,  and  have  formed  it.  Now  I  have  caused  it  to  come,  and  it  shall  be 
(or  come  to  pass),  to  lay  waste,  (as  or  into)  desolate  heaps,  fortified  cities. 
Clericus  makes  this  a  continuation  of  the  speech  ascribed  to  Sennacherib, 
who  is  here  boasting  that  he  (i.  e.  Assyria)  had  created  Egypt,  meaning 
that  Egypt  was  peopled  from  Assyria,  which  was  now  about  to  lay  it  waste. 
This  interpretation  is  refuted  at  great  length  by  Vitringa,  whose  main  objec- 
tion to  it  is,  that  Assyria  was  no  more  the  founder  of  Egypt  than  of  any 
other  ancient  state.  Vitrinira  supposes  this  interpretation  to  have  sprung 
from  an  unwillingness  to  recognise  the  doctrine  of  divine  decrees.  But 
such  a  motive  cannot  be  imputed  to  Calvin,  who,  although  he  agrees  with 
most  interpreters  in  making  these  the  words  of  God  himself,  refers  them  not 
to  his  eternal  purpose,  but  to  his  having  made  Jerusalem  or  Zion  what  she 
was,  and  to  his  fixed  determination  to  preserve  her.    In  order  to  sustain  this 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  621 

explanation  of  the  first  clause,  he  is  obliged  to  read  the  second  interroga- 
tively, which  is  altogether  arbitrary.  Most  writers,  ancient  and  modern, 
are  agreed  in  applying  the  first  clause,  either  to  express  predictions,  or  to 
the  purpose  and  decree  of  God.  The  sense  is  then  substantially  the  same 
with  that  of  ch.  10:  5,  15,  to  wit,  that  the  Assyrian  had  wrought  these 
conquests  only  as  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God,  who  had  formed  and 
declared  his  purpose  long  before,  and  was  now  bringing  it  to  pass.  Hast 
thou  not  heard]  may  either  be  a  reference  to  history  and  prophecy,  or  a 
more  general  expression  of  surprise  that  he  could  be  ignorant  of  what  was  so 
notorious.  Gesenius  directs  attention  to  the  form  ""E^b  in  the  parallel  pas- 
sage (2  Kings  19:  25)  as  less  usual;  but  the  inference,  which  he  evidently 
wishes  to  be  drawn  from  this  variation,  is  precluded  by  the  use  of  the  same 
combination  here  in  the  phrase  pimsb.  A  writer  who,  through  ignorance 
or  want  of  taste,  took  offence  at  the  double  preposition  in  the  one  word, 
could  not  have  retained  it  in  the  other.  Instead  of  imw,  Luzzatto  reads 
^pn",  which  is  unnecessary,  as  the  future  is  entirely  appropriate.  Most 
writers  take  this  as  the  second  person  of  the  verb,  and  thou  shalt  be,  or  that 
thou  shouldcst  be,  Ewald  more  simply  makes  it  the  third  person,  agreeing 
with  the  noun  to  which  the  pronoun  it  must  be  referred,  namely,  the  series 
of  events  in  which  Sennacherib  had  gloried.  The  parallel  passage  has  the 
contracted  form  PWnV,  which,  as  being  unusual  and  irregular,  is  supposed 
by  Gesenius  to  have  been  amended  in  the  later  copy.  For  ta^a  Lowth 
reads  D^ui,  and  translates  the  whole  phrase,  warlike  naiions.  Most  other 
writers  are  agreed  in  making  it  mean  ruined  or  desolated  heaps.  The  con- 
struction is  that  of  a  double  accusative,  without  an  ellipsis  of  the  particle, 
which  may  however  be  supplied  in  English. 

V.  27.  And  their  inhabitants  are  short  of  hand ;  they  are  broken  and 
confounded ;  they  are  grass  of  the  field  and  green  herbage,  grass  of  the 
house-tops,  and  a  field  before  the  stalk  (or  standing  corn),  i.  e.  before  the 
grain  has  grown  up.  This  may  be  regarded  either  as  a  description  of  the 
weakness  of  those  whom  the  Assyrian  had  subdued,  or  as  a  description  of 
the  terror  with  which  they  were  inspired  at  his  approach.  In  the  former 
case  this  verse  extenuates  the  glory  of  his  conquest,  in  the  latter  it  enhances 
it.  A  short  hand  or  arm  implies  inability  to  reach  the  object,  but  does  not 
necessarily  suggest  the  idea  of  mutilation.  In  a  negative  sense,  it  is  applied 
to  God,  Num.  11  :  23.  Isai.  50:  2.  59:  1.  Here,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
the  particle  of  comparison  is  not  expressed.  Green  herbage,  literally,  the 
green  of  herbage.  Barnes  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  ease  with  which 
grass  is  trodden  down  by  an  army  ;  but  how  does  this  cohere  with  the  men- 
tion of  grass  upon  the  house-tops  ?  In  this  last  expression  there  is  reference 
at  once  to  the  flat  surface,  the  earthy  material,  and  the  various  uses  of  the 


622  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

oriental  house-top,  in  consequence  of  which  seeds  would  frequently  spring 
up  there,  but  without  depth  of  root  and  therefore  short-lived.  The  com- 
parison of  human  frailty  and  infirmity  to  grass  is  very  common  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Instead  of  marc,  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  26)  has  nsba 
blasting  or  blasted  corn,  which  has  led  some  to  regard  rraiu?  either  as  an 
error  of  transcription  or  as  an  orthographical  variation  of  the  other  word.  If 
this  be  so,  the  text  before  us  cannot  be  charged  with  always  giving  the  pre- 
ference to  regular  and  familiar  forms.  But  as  the  plural  -T2-ir  is  elsewhere 
used  in  the  sense  of  fields,  this  may  be  here  retained,  the  idea  of  blasting 
being  either  supplied  by  the  connexion,  or  omitted  altogether.  In  the  latter 
case,  the  comparison  is  simply  with  the  weakness  and  fragility  of  immature 
grain,  field  being  put  by  a  common  figure  for  its  contents  or  products.  The 
general  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  evidently  is  that  tiey  were  unable  to 
resist  him. 

V.  28.  And  thy  sitting  doivn,  and  thy  going  out,  and  thy  coming  in,  1 
have  known,  and  thy  raging  (or  provoking  of  thyself)  against  me.  The 
Targum  explains  sitting  to  mean  sitting  in  council,  going  out  going  to  war, 
and  coming  in  the  invasion  of  Judali.  It  is  commonly  agreed,  however, 
that  these  phrases  are  combined  to  signify  all  the  actions  of  his  life,  like 
sitting  down  and  rising  up  in  Ps.  139 :  2,  going  out  and  coming  in,  Deut. 
28 :  6,  1  Kings  3 :  7  and  elsewhere,  the  latter  especially  in  reference  to 
military  movements  (1  Sam.  18:  16.  2  Sam.  5:  2). 

V.  29.  Because  of  thy  raging  against  me,  and  (because)  thy  arrogance 
has  come  up  into  my  ears,  I  will  put  my  hook  in  thy  nose,  and  my  bridle  in 
thy  lips,  and  I  will  cause  thee  to  return  by  the  way  by  which  thou  earnest. 
The  sense  of  tumult,  given  by  the  English  and  other  versions  to  ^NBJ,  is 
founded  on  the  etymology  proposed  by  Rabbi  Jonah,  who*derives  it,  through 
•pair,  from  nxta.  The  more  obvious  derivation  is  from  the  verb  ^xia  and  its 
root  ",x,u,  meaning  to  rest  or  be  quiet,  from  which  we  may  readily  deduce 
the  ideas  of  security,  indifference,  nonchalance,  superciliousness,  and  arro- 
gance. However  dubious  the  etymology  may  be,  the  whole  connexion 
makes  it  certain  that  the  word  is  expressive  of  something  in  the  conduct  of 
Sennacherib  offensive  to  Jehovah.  In  the  first  clause  there  is  an  abrupt 
change  of  construction  from  the  infinitive  to  the  finite  verb,  which  is  not 
uncommon  in  Hebrew,  and  which  in  this  case  does  not  at  all  obscure  the 
sense.  Another  solution  of  the  syntax  is  to  take  )^  as  an  elliptical  expres- 
sion for  "<»»  )T*  or  •'a  ",r<,  as  in  Num.  20:  12  and  I  Kings  20:  42,  and 
make  nbs  agree  with  both  the  verbal  nouns  preceding.  This  is  the  con- 
struction given  in  the  English  Version.  The  figures  in  the  last  clause  are 
drawn  from  the  customary  method  of  controlling  horses,  and  from  a  less 


ISAIAH,  •HAP.  XXXVII.  623 

familiar  mode  of  treating  buffaloes  and  other  wild  animals,  still  practised  in 
the  east  and  in  menageries.  (Compare  Ezek.  19:  4.  29:  4.  hS:  4.  Job 
41 :  1.  The  figure  may  be  taken  in  a  general  sense  as  signifying  failure 
and  defeat,  or  more  specifically  as  referring  to  Sennacherib's  hasty  flight. 

V.  30.  And  this  to  thee  (oh  Hezekiah,  shall  be)  the  sign  (of  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  promise):  cat,  the  (present)  year,  that  which  grow  eth  of  itself , 
and  the  second  year  that  which  springeth  of  the  same,  and  in  the  third  year 
tow  ye,  and  reap,  and  plant  vineyards,  and  eat  the  fruit  thereof.  The 
preceding  verse  closes  the  address  to  the  Assyrian,  begun  in  v.  22,  and  the 
Prophet  now  continues  his  message  to  Hezekiah.  It  is  commonly  agreed 
that  mso  denotes  voluntary  growth  or  products,  such  as  spring  from  the 
seed  dropped  before  or  during  harvest.  Most  writers  give  a  similar  meaning 
to  otjb  (2  Kings  19:  29  umo),  the  etymology  of  which  is  very  doubtful. 
Hitzig  applies  it,  in  a  wider  sense,  to  spontaneous  products  generally,  such 
as  milk,  honey,  etc.  Aquila  and  Theodotion  render  the  two  words  avroficcTu 
and  avtocpvJj.  Symmachus  and  Jerome  make  the  second  mean  apples.  As 
to  the  general  meaning  of  the  verse,  there  are  two  opinions.  Rosenmuller, 
Augusti,  and  Gesenius  understand  the  infinitive  birx  as  referring  to  the  past. 
The  sense  will  then  be  that  although  the  cultivation  of  the  land  had  been 
interrupted  for  the  last  two  years,  yet  now  in  this  third  year  they  might 
safely  resume  it.  To  this  interpretation  it  may  be  objected,  that  it  arbitrarily 
makes  the  year  mean  the  year  before  the  last,  and  no  less  arbitrarily  assumes 
that  the  infinitive  is  here  used  for  the  preterite.  The  later  German  writers 
seem  to  have  gone  back  to  the  old  and  obvious  interpretation,  which  refers 
the  whole  verse  to  the  future.  This  is  grammatically  more  exact,  because 
it  takes  the  year  in  a  sense  analogous  to  that  of  the  day,  the  common  He- 
brew phrase  for  this  day,  and  assimilates  the  infinitive  to  the  imperatives 
which  follow.  Thus  understood,  the  verse  is  a  prediction  that  for  two  years 
the  people  should  subsist  upon  the  secondary  fruits  of  what  was  sown  two 
years  before,  but  that  in  the  third  year  they  should  till  the  ground,  as  usual, 
implying  that  Sennacherib's  invasion  shouid  before  that  time  be  at  an  end. 
But  why  should  this  event  be  represented  as  so  distant,  when  the  context 
seems  to  speak  of  Sennacherib's  discomfiture  and  flight  as  something  which 
immediately  ensued?  Of  this  two  explanations  have  been  given.  The  one 
is,  that  the  year  in  which  these  words  were  uttered  was  a  sabbatical  year, 
and  the  next  the  year  of  Jubilee,  during  neither  of  which  the  Jews  were 
allowed  to  cultivate  the  ground,  so  that  the  resumption  of  tillage  was  of 
course  postponed  to  the  third.  It  is  no  conclusive  objection  to  this  theory, 
that  the  chronological  hypothesis  which  it  involves  cannot  be  positively 
proved.  The  difficulty  in  all  such  cases  arises  from  the  very  absence  of 
positive  proof,  and  the  necessity  of  choosing  between  different  possibilities- 


624  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 

A  more  serious  objection  is,  that  the  mode  of  subsistence  for  the  first  two 
years  seems  to  be  mentioned,  not  as  a  mere  preparation  for  what  follows, 
but  as  a  substantive  prediction.  Even  this,  however,  would  be  of  no  weight 
in  opposition  to  an  hypothesis  which  accounts  for  the  known  facts  and 
explains  the  language  of  the  passage.  The  other  solution  of  the  difficulty 
is,  that  Sennacherib  was  now  on  his  way  to  Egypt,  and  that  the  Prophet 
expected  his  return  within  a  year,  by  which  the  Jews  would  be  again 
deterred  from  making  the  usual  provision  for  their  own  subsistence,  and  thus 
the  crops  of  two  years  would  be  lost.  But  such  an  expectation  of  the  Pro- 
phet would  have  been  falsified  by  the  Assyrian's  immediate  retreat  to  his 
own  country,  and  however  this  may  recommend  the  supposition  to  those 
who  refuse  to  admit  his  inspiration,  can  have  no  weight  with  those  who 
regard  him  as  a  prophet.  The  proofs  of  his  divine  legation  and  foreknow- 
ledge are  so  many  and  various,  that  when  two  hypotheses  present  them- 
selves, the  one  which  clashes  with  his  inspiration  is  of  course  to  be  rejected. 
The  only  remaining  question  is,  wherein  the  sign  consisted,  or  in  what  sense 
the  word  sign  is  to  be  understood.  Some  take  it  in  its  strongest  sense  of  mira- 
cle, and  refer  it,  either  to  the  usual  divine  interposition  for  the  subsistence  of 
the  people  during  the  sabbatical  years,  or  to  the  miraculous  provision  pro- 
mised in  this  particular  case.  Others  understand  it  here  as  simply  meaning 
an  event  inseparable  from  another,  either  as  an  antecedent  or  a  consequent, 
so  that  the  promise  of  the  one  is  really  a  pledge  of  the  other.  Thus  the 
promise  that  the  children  of  Israel  should  worship  at  Mount  Sinai  was  a 
sign  to  Moses  that  they  should  first  leave  Egypt,  and  the  promised  birth  of 
the  Messiah  was  a  sign  that  the  Jewish  nation  should  continue  till  he  came. 
(See  above,  p.  119.) 

V.  31.  And  the  escaped  (literally  (he  escape)  of  Judah,  that  is  left, 
shall  again  take  root  downward  and  bear  fruit  upward.  This  verse  fore- 
tells, by  a  familiar  figure,  the  returning  prosperity  of  Judah.  tjO^  usually 
means  to  add,  and  is  taken  here  by  Hendewerk  in  the  sense  of  enlarging  or 
increasing.  Gesenius  seems  to  make  it  simply  equivalent  to  the  English 
take  or  strike  in  a  similar  connexion.  Ewald  and  the  older  writers  under- 
stand it  as  implying  repetition,  an  idea  which  may  be  expressed  in  transla- 
tion by  again,  anew,  or  afresh.  For  the  peculiar  use  of  the  abstract  noun 
nta^D,  see  above,  ch.  4  :  2.  10  :  20.  15:  9. 

V.  32.  For  out  of  Jerusalem  shall  go  forth  a  remnant,  and  an  escape 
from  Mount  Zion ;  the  zeal  of  Jehovah  of  Hosts  shall  do  this.  For  the 
meaning  of  the  last  clause,  see  the  commentary  on  ch.  9:  8.  The  first 
clause  is  an  explanation  of  the  use  of  the  words  n*j-»bc  and  mauDa  in  the 
foregoing  verse.    Grotius  (on  2  Kings  19 :  31)  understands  the  going  forth 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  625 


literally  of  the  people  being  pent  up  in  Jerusalem,  but  now  set  at  large  by 
the  retreat  of  the  invaders,  and  again  quotes  from  Virgil,  Panduntur  portae ; 
juvat  ire  et  Dorica  castra  desertosque  videre  locos.  (See  above,  on  ch.  33  : 
17.)  But  it  is  much  more  natural  to  understand  it  figuratively  like  the 
preceding  verse,  and  as  denoting  simply  that  some  in  Jerusalem  or  Zion  shall 
be  saved. 

V.  33.  Therefore  (because  Jehovah  has  determined  to  fulfil  these  pro- 
mises), thus  saith  Jehovah  (with  respect)  to  the  king  of  Assyria,  he  shall 
not  come  to  this  city,  and  shall  not  shoot  an  arrow  there,  and  shall  not  come 
before  it  with  a  shield,  (or  a  shield  shall  not  come  before  it),  and  shall  not 
cast  up  a  mound  against  it.  Some  understand  this  as  meaning  simply  that 
he  should  not  take  the  city,  others  that  he  should  not  even  attack  it.  pB 
has  its  ordinary  sense  of  shield,  and  not  that  of  ouvaamafibg  or  testudo.  In 
favour  of  the  usual  construction  of  nsanp^  is  the  fact  that  all  the  other  verbs 
have  Jehovah  for  their  subject.  Some  translate  bx  into,  which  is  favoured 
neither  by  the  usage  of  the  particle  nor  by  the  context,  which  relates  to 
movements  of  the  enemy  without  the  walls.  Calvin  understands  by  nbbfc 
the  balista,  or  ancient  engine  for  projecting  stones  and  other  missiles,  a  gra- 
tuitous expedient  to  evade  an  imaginary  difficulty,  as  to  the  use  of  the  verb 
-JBU3,  which  usually  means  to  pour,  but  may  also  be  applied  to  excavation 
and  the  heaping  up  of  earth.  This  verse  seems  to  show  that  Jerusalem 
was  not  actually  besieged  by  the  Assyrians,  or  at  least  not  by  the  main 
body  of  the  army  under  Sennacherib  himself,  unless  we  assume  that  he  had 
already  done  so  and  retreated,  and  regard  this  as  a  promise  that  the  attempt 
should  not  be  repeated. 

V.  34.  By  the  toay  that  he  came  shall  he  return,  and  to  this  city  shall 
he  not  come,  saith  Jehovah.  The  first  clause  may  simply  mean  that  he 
shall  go  back  whence  he  came,  or  more  specifically,  that  he  shall  retreat 
without  turning  aside  to  attack  Jerusalem,  either  for  the  first  or  second  time. 
The  construction  given  in  the  English  Bible  (by  the  same  shall  he  return) 
makes  aa  emphatic  and  connects  it  with  the  following  verb.  This  is  also 
the  masoretic  interpunction ;  but  according  to  analogy  and  usage,  it  belongs 
to  what  precedes  and  must  be  joined  with  "W8^  as  the  usual  Hebrew  expres- 
sion for  in  which. 

V.  35.  And  I  will  cover  over  (or  protect)  this  city,  (so  as)  to  save  it, 
for  my  own  sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  David  my  servant.  This  does  not  mean 
that  the  faith  or  piety  of  David,  as  an  individual,  should  be  rewarded  in  his 
descendants,  but  that  the  promise  made  to  him,  respecting  his  successors, 
and  especially  the  last  and  greatest  of  them,  should  be  faithfully  performed. 

40 


626  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII. 


(See  2  Sam.  7  :  12,  13).  It  is  equally  arbitrary,  therefore,  to  make  David 
here  the  name  of  the  Messiah,  and  to  infer,  as  Hitzig  does,  from  this  men- 
tion of  David,  that  vs.  32-35  are  by  a  later  writer.  Knobel,  on  the  con- 
trary, notes  it  as  characteristic  of  Isaiah,  and  refers  to  ch.  9 :  6.  11:1.  10. 
29  :  1,  as  parallel  examples.  Umbreit  says  the  genuineness  of  these  verses 
can  be  called  in  question  only  by  a  perfectly  uncritical  skepticism  (Zivei- 
felsucht).  The  terms  of  the  promise  in  the  first  clause  may  be  compared 
with  those  of  ch.  33  :  5. 

V.  36.  And  the  angel  of  Jehovah  went  forth,  and  smote  in  the  camp  of 
Assyria  an  hundred  and  eighty  and  five  thousand,  and  they  (the  survivors, 
■qv  the  Jews)  rose  early  in  the  morning,  and  behold  all  of  them  (that  were 
smitten)  were  dead  corpses.  Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  extenuate 
this  miracle,  by  reading  qlfex  for  C)b«,  (chiefs  instead  of  thousands),  or  by 
supposing  that  the  vast  number  mentioned  were  in  danger  of  death  from  the 
plague  or  otherwise.  Others,  unable  to  explain  it  away,  and  yet  unwilling 
to  admit  the  fact  recorded,  resort  to  the  cheap  and  trite  expedient  of  calling 
it  a  myth  or  a  traditional  exaggeration.  Such  assertions  admit  of  no  refuta- 
tion, because  there  is  nothing  to  refute.  Receiving,  as  these  very  authors 
do,  the  other  statements  of  the  context  as  historical,  they  have  no  right  to 
single  this  out  as  a  fabrication.  If  it  is  one,  then  the  rest  may  be  so  too, 
for  we  know  that  fictitious  writers  do  not  confine  themselves  to  prodigies 
and  wonders,  but  often  imitate  the  actual  occurrences  of  real  life.  In  the 
fact  itself,  there  is  nothing  incredible.  Those  who  reject  it  themselves 
refer  to  the  enormous  ravages  of  the  plague.  If  the  population  of  whole 
cities  may  be  buried  in  a  night  by  a  flow  of  lava,  or  in  an  instant  by  an 
earthquake,  what  is  there  to  shock  the  understanding  in  the  statement  of 
the  text,  especially  on  the  supposition,  favoured  by  these  same  interpreters, 
that  the  angel  of  Jehovah  is  a  hebraism  for  the  plague,  or  some  other  physi- 
cal cause  or  means  of  destruction.  But  even  if  we  give  the  phrase  its  usual 
sense,  "  there  is,"  to  use  the  words  of  Barnes,  "  no  more  improbability  in 
the  existence  of  a  good  angel  than  there  is  in  the  existence  of  a  good  man, 
or  in  the  existence  of  an  evil  spirit  than  there  is  in  the  existence  of  a  bad 
man  ;  there  is  no  more  improbability  in  the  supposition  that  God  employs 
invisible  and  heavenly  messengers  to  accomplish  his  purposes  than  there  is 
that  he  employs  men."  There  is  consequently  no  need  of  departing  from 
the  strict  sense  of  the  words,  or  of  disputing  whether  by  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  we  are  to  understand  a  storm,  a  hot  wind,  or  a  pestilential  fever.  As 
little  necessity  or  reason  is  there  for  attempting  to  make  the  verse  descriptive 
of  a  gradual  or  protracted  mortality,  so  that  every  morning  when  they  rose 
there  was  nothing  to  be  seen  but  corpses.  The  terms  used  can  naturally 
signify  nothing  but  a  single  instantaneous  stroke  of  divine  vengeance,  and 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVII.  627 

the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  19:  35)  says  expressly  that  the  angel  smote 
this  number  in  that  night.  Skeptical  critics  would  be  glad  to  have  it  in 
their  power  to  plead  the  silence  of  profane  tradition  as  an  objection  to  the 
narrative  before  us.  But  although  such  an  inference  would  be  wholly  in- 
conclusive, even  if  the  fact  were  so,  it  happens  in  this  case  that  the  fact  is 
not  so.  The  account  which  Herodotus  received  from  the  Egyptian  priests? 
as  to  Sennacherib's  retreat  from  Pelusium,  occasioned  by  an  irruption  of 
field-mice,  which  Vulcan  sent  to  rescue  Sethos,  who  was  priest  to  that 
divinity  as  well  as  king  of  Egypt,  is  admitted  by  the  latest  German  writers, 
notwithstanding  the  denial  of  Gesenius,  to  be  an  evident  variation  of  this 
history,  not  more  corrupt  than  in  many  other  cases  where  the  identity  of 
origin  has  never  been  disputed.  The  transfer  of  the  scene  of  the  event  to 
Egypt,  and  the  substitution  of  Sethos  and  Vulcan  for  Hezekiah  and  Jehovah, 
are  in  strict  accordance  with  the  common  practice  of  the  ancient  nations, 
to  connect  the  most  remarkable  events,  by  their  traditions,  with  their  own 
early  history.  Even  the  figment  of  the  mice  may  be  regarded  as  a  change 
of  no  unusual  character  or  magnitude,  unless  we  choose  to  assume,  with 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  it  was  founded  on  a  misconception  of  the  mouse  as 
the  hieroglyphical  emblem  of  destruction.  The  ancient  date  of  the  tra- 
dition was  attested,  in  the  days  of  Herodotus  himself,  by  a  statue  of  Sethos 
in  the  temple  of  Vulcan,  holding  a  mouse  in  his  hand,  with  the  inscription 
ig  ifit  rig  oQtav  6vae§)jg  ea7(a.  The  parallel  narrative  in  .2  Chr.  32:  21, 
instead  of  numbering  the  slain,  says  that  all  the  mighty  men  of  valour,  and 
the  leaders,  and  the  captains,  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrian  were  cut  off. 
Where  this  terrific  overthrow  took  place,  whether  before  Jerusalem,  or  at 
Libnah,  or  at  some  intervening  point,  has  been  disputed,  and  can  never  be 
determined,  in  the  absence  of  all  data,  monumental  or  historical.  Through- 
out  the  sacred  narrative,  it  seems  to  be  intentionally  left  uncertain,  whether 
Jerusalem  was  besieged  at  all,  whether  Sennacherib  in  person  ever  came 
before  it,  whether  his  army  was  divided  or  united  when  the  stroke  befell  them, 
and  also  what  proportion  of  the  host  escaped.  It  is  enough  to  know  that 
one  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  men  perished  in  a  single  night. 

V.  37.  Then  decamped,  and  departed,  and  returned,  Sennacherib,  "king 
of  Assyria,  and  dwelt  (or  remained)  in  Nineveh.  The  form  of  expression 
in  the  first  clause  is  thought  by  some  writers  to  resemble  Cicero's  famous 
description  of  Catiline's  escape  (abiit,  excessit,  evasit,  erwpit),  the  rapid 
succession  of  the  verbs  suggesting  the  idea  of  confused  and  sudden  flight. 
His  dwelling  in  Nineveh  is  supposed  by  some  interpreters  to  be  mentioned 
as  implying  that  he  went  forth  no  more  to  war,  at  least  not  against  the  Jews. 
An  old  tradition  says  that  he  lived  only  fifty  days  after  his  return  :  but 
according  to  other  chronological  hypotheses,   he  reigned  eighteen   years 


628  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII. 

longer,  and  during  that  interval  waged  war  successfully  against  the  Greeks 
and  founded  Tarsus  in  Cilicia. 

V.  38.  And  he  was  worshipping  (in)  the  house  of  Nisroch  his  god, 
and  Adrammelech  and  Sharezer  his  sons  smote  him  with  the  sword,  and 
they  escaped  (literally,  saved  themselves)  into  the  land  of  Ararat,  and 
Esarhaddon  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.  The  Jews  have  a  tradition  that 
Sennacherib  intended  to  sacrifice  his  sons,  and  that  they  slew  him  in  self- 
defence.  Another  tradition  is,  that  he  had  fled  into  the  temple  of  his  god 
as  an  asylum.  A  simpler  supposition  is,  that  the  time  of  his  devotions 
was  chosen  by  his  murderers,  as  one  when  he  would  be  least  guarded  or 
suspicious.  Hendewerk  cites,  as  parallel  instances  of  monarchs  murdered 
while  at  prayer,  the  cases  of  the  Caliph  Omar  and  the  emperor  Leo  V. 
For  the  various  derivations  of  the  name  Nisroch  which  have  been  proposed, 
see  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  torn.  II.  p.  892.  The  name  Adrammelech  occurs 
in  2  Kings  17  :  31,  as  that  of  a  Mesopotamian  or  Assyrian  idol.  Berosus 
has  Ardumusanus,  and  Abydenus  Adramelus,  which  are  obvious  corruptions 
of  the  Hebrew  or  Aramean  name.  In  like  manner  Esarhaddon  is  called 
Asordanius  by  Berosus,  and  Axerdis  by  Abydenus,  who  moreover  has 
Nergilus  instead  of  Sharezer,  a  discrepancy  which  seems  to  be  explained 
by  the  combination  JSergal-sharezer  (Jer.  39:  3,  13).  Supposing  this  to 
have  been  the  full  name  of  Sennacherib's  son,  one  half  would  seem  to  have 
been  preserved  by  Abydenus,  and  the  other  by  Isaiah.  Ararat,  both  here 
and  in  Gen.  8  :  4,  is  the  name  of  a  region,  corresponding  more  or  less 
exactly  to  Armenia,  or  to  that  part  of  it  in  which  ftie  ark  rested.  The 
Armenians  still  call  their  country  by  this  name.  From  the  expression  moun- 
tains of  Ararat  (Gen.  8:  4),  has  sprung  the  modern  practice  of  applying 
this  name  to  the  particular  eminence  where  Noah  landed.  The  country  of 
Ararat  is  described  by  Smith  and  Dwight,  in  their  Researches  in  Armenia, 
vol.  II.  p.  73,  etc.  The  original  name  is  retained  in  the  Vulgate,  while  the 
Septuagint  renders  it  'Aopevia. 


CHAPTER   XXXVIII. 


This  chapter  contains  an  account  of  Hezekiah's  illness  and  miraculous 
recovery,  together  with  a  Psalm  which  he  composed  in  commemoration  of 
his  sufferings  and  deliverance.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  20:  1-11) 
varies  more  from  that  before  us  than  in  the  preceding  chapter.     So  far  as 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII.  629 

they  are  parallel,  the  narrative  in  Kings  is  more  minute  and  circumstantial, 
and  at  the  same  time  more  exactly  chronological  in  its  arrangement.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Psalm  is  wholly  wanting  in  that  passage.  All  these 
circumstances  favour  the  conclusion  that  the  text  before  us  is  the  first  draught, 
and  the  other  a  repetition  by  the  hand  of  the  same  writer. 

V.  1.  In  those  days  Hezelciah  was  sick  unto  death,  and  Isaiah,  the  son 
of  Amoz,  the  Prophet,  came  to  him,  and  said  to  him,  Thus  saith  Jehovah, 
Order  thy  house,  for  thou  (art)  dying,  and  art  not  to  live.  As  Hezekiah 
survived  this  sickness  fifteen  years  (v.  5),  and  reigned  in  all  twenty-nine 
(2  Kings  18 :  2),  those  days  must  be  restricted  to  the  fourteenth  year,  which 
was  that  of  the  Assyrian  invasion.  Whether  this  sickness  was  before  the 
great  catastrophe,  as  Usher,  Lightfoot,  and  Prideaux  suppose,  or  after  it,  as 
Calvin,  Vitringa,  and  Gesenius  think,  is  not  a  question  of  much  exegetical 
importance.  The  first  opinion  is  sustained  by  the  authority  of  the  Seder 
Olam,  the  last  by  that  of  Josephus.  In  favour  of  the  first  is  the  promise  in 
v.  6,  according  to  its  simplest  and  most  obvious  meaning,  though  it  certainly 
admits  of  a  wider  application.  It  is  also  favoured  by  the  absence  of  allu- 
sions to  the  slaughter  of  Sennacherib's  host  in  the  song  of  Hezekiah.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  his  prayer  is  only  for  recovery  from  sickness,  without 
any  reference  to  siege  or  invasion.  Vitringa  objects  to  this  hypothesis,  that 
the  king  of  Babylon,  who  was  tributary  to  Assyria,  would  not  have  dared 
to  send  a  message  of  congratulation  to  Hezekiah  before  the  destruction  of 
the  host.  But  even  granting  this,  which  might  be  questioned,  and  admitting 
the  assumed  fact  as  to  the  dependence  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  why  may  we 
not  suppose  that  the  catastrophe  occurred  in  the  interval  between  Isaiah's 
sickness  and  the  embassy  from  Merodach-baladan  ?  Calvin  objects  to  the 
hypothesis  which  makes  the  sickness  previous  in  date  to  the  destruction  of 
the  host,  that  it  would  not  have  been  omitted  in  its  proper  place.  It  is  alto- 
gether natural,  however,  that  the  Prophet,  after  carrying  the  history  of  Sen- 
nacherib to  its  conclusion,  should  go  back  to  complete  that  of  Hezekiah  also. 
rvrab  strictly  means  to  die,  i.  e.  so  as  to  be  ready  to  die,  or  at  the  point  of 
death.  An  analogous  Greek  phrase  (aa&weia  nobg  ftdvarov)  is  used  in 
John  11 :  4,  to  denote  a  sickness  actually  fatal.  Here  it  expresses  merely 
tendency  or  danger,  the  natural  and  necessary  course  of  things  without  a 
special  intervention.  Order  thy  house  is  ambiguous,  both  in  Hebrew  and 
in  English.  The  b  may  express  relation  in  general,  or  indicate  the  object 
of  address.  In  the  former  case  the  sense  will  be,  give  orders  with  respect 
to  thy  house.  (LXX.  ra£ca  mol  tov  oiixov  gov.)  In  the  latter,  order  or 
command  thy  household,  i.  e.  make  known  to  them  thy  last  will.  Grotius 
quotes  from  Plutarch  the  analogous  expression,  ivzelXea&ai  rolg  oixeioig.  In 
either  case,  the  general  idea  is  that  of  a  final  settling  of  his  affairs,  in  the 


630  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII. 

prospect  of  death.  (Compare  2  Sam.  17  :  23.)  There  is  no  need  of  depart- 
ing from  the  strict  sense  of  nfa  as  an  active  participle.  The  modern  writers 
infer  from  the  treatment  described  in  v.  21,  and  said  to  be  still  practised  in 
the  east,  that  Hezekiah  had  the  plague,  which  would  make  it  less  improba- 
ble that  this  was  the  instrument  employed  in  the  destruction  of  Sennache- 
rib's army.  Of  those  who  make  the  sickness  subsequent  to  this  great  deliv- 
erance, some  suppose  the  former  to  have  been  intended,  like  the  thorn  in 
Paul's  flesh,  to  preserve  Hezekiah  from  being  exalted  above  measure.  That 
he  was  not  wholly  free  from  the  necessity  of  such  a  check,  may  be  inferred 
from  his  subsequent  conduct  to  the  Babylonian  envoys. 

V.  2.  And  Hezekiah  turned  his  face  to  the  wall,  and  prayed  to  Jeho- 
vah. Jerome  understands  by  the  wall  that  of  his  heart,  Vatablus  the  side 
of  his  bed,  Jonathan  the  wall  of  the  temple,  towards  which  Daniel  prayed 
(Dan.  6:  11).  But  this  last  was  a  practice  which  arose  during  the  exile, 
and  even  the  promise  in  1  Kings  8 :  25  has  reference  to  that  condition. 
The  obvious  meaning  is  the  wall  of  the  room,  towards  which  he  turned,  not 
merely  to  collect  his  thoughts,  or  to  conceal  his  tears,  but  as  a  natural 
expression  of  strong  feeling.  As  Ahab  turned  his  face  toward  the  wall  in 
anger  (1  Kings  20:  2),  so  Hezekiah  does  the  same  in  grief.  There  is  no 
need  of  supposing  with  Lowth,  that  the  bed  was  in  the  corner  of  the  room, 
so  that  he  could  not  turn  either  way  without  looking  towards  the  wall. 
Calvin  regards  the  conduct  of  Hezekiah  in  this,  and  all  other  parts  of  the 
narrative,  as  an  eminent  example  of  pious  resignation.  Vitringa  seems  to 
admit  that  the  effect  here  described  was  connected  in  some  degree  with 
Hezekiah's  undue  attachment  to  the  things  of  this  life.  Grotius  ascribes  it 
to  the  indistinct  views  then  enjoyed  of  a  future  state.  Josephus  thinks  he 
was  the  more  distressed  because  he  had  as  yet  no  heir,  since  Manasseh  was 
not  born  till  three  years  afterwards  (2  Kings  21  :  1). 

V.  3.  And  he  said,  Ah  Jehovah,  remember,  I  beseech  thee,  how  I  have 
walked  before  thee  in  truth  and  with  a  whole  heart,  and  that  which  is  good 
in  thine  eyes  I  have  done.  The  figure  of  walking  before  God  includes  the 
ideas  of  communion  with  him  and  subjection  to  him,  and  is  therefore  more 
comprehensive  than  the  kindred  phrase  of  ivalking  with  him.  By  truth  we 
are  here  to  understand  sincerity  and  constancy.  The  explanation  of  n^tt  by 
Gesenius  as  meaning  devoted  (like  the  Arabic  jJLwuo  Moslim)  is  justified 
neither  by  Hebrew  etymology  nor  usage,  which  require  it  to  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  whole  or  perfect,  as  opposed  to  any  essential  defect.  The 
reference  of  this  and  the  following  phrase  to  freedom  from  idolatry  and  zeal 
for  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  is  too  limited.  This  verse  is  not  an  angry 
expostulation,  nor  an  ostentatious  self-praise,  but  an  appeal  to  the  only  satis- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII.  631 

factory  evidence  of  his  sincerity.  Calvin  supposes  Hezekiah  to  be  here 
resisting  a  temptation  to  despondency  arising  from  the  sudden  intimation  of 
approaching  death,  njx  is  a  strong  expression  of  entreaty.  It  is  more 
regularly  written  elsewhere  nsk.  Hitzig  supposes  it  to  be  a  contraction  of 
K5~bi<  (Gen.  19:  7)  ;  but  as  it  is  also  used  where  there  is  no  negation,  it  is 
better  to  derive  it  with  Gesenius  from  nx  and  S3. 

T  T 

V.  4.  And  the  word  of  Jehovah  was  (or  came)  to  Isaiah,  saying  (what 
follows  in  the  next  verse).  Calvin  supposes  a  considerable  time  to  have 
elapsed  before  this  second  message  was  sent;  but  he  seems  to  have  over- 
looked the  more  particular  statement  in  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  20 : 
4),  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him  before  he  had  gone  out  of  the 
middle  court  (according  to  the  keri),  or  the  middle  city  (according  to  the 
kethib).  The  former  reading  is  found  in  the  ancient  versions,  but  the  latter 
as  usual  is  supposed  to  be  more  ancient  by  the  latest  critics.  The  middle 
city  may  either  mean  the  middle  of  the  city  (media  urbs),  or  a  particular 
part  of  Jerusalem  so  called,  perhaps  that  in  which  the  temple  stood,  or  more 
generally  that  which  lay  between  the  upper  city  on  Mount  Zion  and  the 
lower  city  on  Mount  Akra.  The  communication  may  have  been  through 
the  middle  gate  mentioned  by  Jeremiah  (39:  3).  In  either  case,  the  inter- 
val could  not  have  been  a  long  one,  though  sufficient  to  try  the  faith  of 
Hezekiah.  The  omission  of  these  words  in  the  text  before  us  is  ascribed 
by  Knobel  to  ignorance  of  the  localities  on  the  part  of  a  writer  living  after 
the  exile.  It  might  have  been  supposed  that  even  such  a  writer,  living  on 
the  spot  and  with  the  older  Scriptures  in  his  hands,  would  have  enjoyed  as 
good  opportunities  of  understanding  such  a  point  as  Knobel  himself. 

V.  5.  Go  and  say  to  Hezekiah,  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  God  of  David 
thy  father,  I  have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have  seen  thy  tears  (or  weep- 
ing) ;  behold,  I  am  adding  (or  about  to  add)  unto  thy  days  fifteen  years. 
The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  20 :  5)  has :  return  and  say  to  Hezekiah, 
the  chief  (or  leader)  of  my  people,  Thus  saith  Jehovah  etc.  After  tears  it 
adds  :  behold,  (I  am)  healing  (or  about  to  heal)  thee  ;  on  the  third  day  thou 
shalt  go  up  to  the  house  of  Jehovah.  David  is  particularly  mentioned  as 
the  person  to  whom  the  promise  of  perpetual  succession  had  been  given 
(2  Sam.  7 :  12).  The  construction  of  t)o*p  ^r\  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  29: 
14.  Gesenius  and  the  rest  of  that  school  set  this  down  of  course  as  un- 
doubtedly a  prophecy  ex  eventu,  because  (says  Knobel  with  great  naivete) 
Isaiah  could  not  know  how  long  Hezekiah  was  to  live.  Hendewerk  adds 
that  Jehovah  is  here  represented  as  changing  his  mind  and  directly  contra- 
dicting himself.  To  this  no  further  answer  is  necessary  than  what  Calvin 
had  said  long  before,  to  wit,  that  the  threatening  in  v.  1  was  conditional, 


632  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII. 


and  that  the  second  message  was  designed  from  the  beginning  no  less  than 
the  first.  The  design  of  the  whole  proceeding  is  well  explained  by  Vitringa 
to  have  been  to  let  Hezekiah  feel  his  obligation  to  a  special  divine  interpo- 
sition for  a  recovery  which  might  otherwise  have  seemed  the  unavoidable 
effect  of  ordinary  causes. 

V.  6.  And  out  of  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Assyria  1  will  save  thee  and 
this  city,  and  I  will  cover  overKpv  protect)  this  city.  Hitzig,  Hendewerk, 
and  Knobel,  with  some  of  the  older  writers,  infer  from  this  verse  that  the 
army  of  Sennacherib  was  still  in  Judah.  Gesenius  and  Rosenmuller  follow 
Calvin  and  Vitringa  in  referring  it  to  subsequent  attacks  or  apprehensions. 
This  is  really  more  natural,  because  it  accounts  for  the  addition  of  this 
promise  to  that  of  a  prolonged  life.  The  connexion,  as  explained  by  Cal- 
vin, is,  that  he  should  not  only  live  fifteen  years  longer,  but  should  be  free 
from  the  Assyrians  during  that  time.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  20 :  6) 
adds,  for  my  own  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  David  my  servant,  as  in  ch.  37  : 
35.  Had  this  addition  been  made  in  the  text  before  us,  it  would  of  course 
have  been  an  instance  of  repetition  and  assimilation,  symptomatic  of  a  later 
writer. 

V.  7.  And  this  (shall  be)  to  thee  the  sign  from  Jehovah,  that  Jehovah 
will  perform  this  word  which  he  hath  spoken.  The  English  Version  has  a 
sign ;  but  the  article  is  emphatic,  the  (appointed)  sign  (proceeding)  from 
Jehovah  (not  merely  from  the  Prophet).  The  translation  this  thing,  al- 
though justified  by  usage,  is  here  inadmissible  because  unnecessary.  The 
parallel  narrative  in  Kings  is  much  more  circumstantial.  What  occurs 
below,  as  the  last  two  verses  of  this  chapter,  there  stands  in  its  regular 
chronological  order,  between  the  promise  of  recovery  and  the  announcement 
of  the  sign,  so  that  the  latter  appears  to  have  been  given  in  compliance  with 
Hezekiah's  own  request  and  choice.  And  Isaiah  said,  This  (shall  be)  to 
thee  the  sign  from  Jehovah,  that  Jehovah  will  perform  the  thing  which  he 
hath  spoken ;  shall  the  shadow  advance  ten  degrees,  or  shall  it  recede  ten 
degrees  1  And  Hezekiah  said,  It  is  a  light  thing  for  the  shadow  to  decline 
ten  degrees ;  nay,  but  let  the  shadow  return  backward  ten  degrees  (2  Kings 
20:  9,  10).     As  to  the  transposition  of  vs.  21,  22,  see  below. 

V.  8.  Behold,  I  (am)  causing  the  shadow  to  go  back,  the  degrees  which 
it  has  gone*  down  (or  which  have  gone  dotvn)  on  the  degrees  of  Ahaz 
with  the  sun,  ten  degrees  backward;  and  the  sun  returned  ten  degrees 
on  the  degrees  which  it  had  gone  down.  As  to  the  nature  of  the  phe- 
nomenon here  described,  there  are  three  opinions.  The  first  is  that  the 
Prophet  took  advantage  of  a  transient  obscuration,  or  of  some  unusual 
refraction,  to  confirm  the  king's  belief  of  what  he  promised.     The  sec- 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII.  633 


ond  is  that  the  whole  is  a  myth  or  legend  of  a  later  date.  The  third 
is  that  Isaiah  did  actually  exhibit  a  supernatural  attestation  of  the  truth 
of  his  prediction.  This  is  supposed  by  some  to  have  consisted  merely  in 
the  foresight  of  a  natural  phenomenon,  while  others  regard  the  phenomenon 
itself  as  miraculous.  Of  these  last,  some  again  suppose  a  mere  miracu- 
lous appearance,  others  an  actual  disturbance  of  the  ordinary  course  of 
nature.  This  last  is  not  a  question  of  much  exegetical  or  practical  impor- 
tance, since  it  neither  can  nor  need  be  ascertained,  whether  the  course  of 
the  sun  (or  of  the  earth  around  it)  was  miraculously  changed,  or  the  shadow 
miraculously  rendered  independent  of  the  sun  which  caused  it.  The  former 
hypothesis  is  favoured  by  the  statement  that  the  sun  went  back,  if  taken  in 
its  strictest  and  most  obvious  sense,  although  it  may  be  understood  as  a 
metonymy  of  the  cause  for  the  effect.  At  any  rate,  little  would  appear  to 
be  gained  by  paring  down  a  miracle  to  certain  dimensions,  when  even  on  the 
lowest  supposition  it  can  only  be  ascribed  to  the  almighty  power  of  God,  with 
whom  all  things  are  not  only  possible  but  equally  easy.  The  choice  is  not 
between  a  greater  and  lesser  miracle,  but  between  a  miracle,  a  myth,  and  a 
trick.  The  last  two  suppositions  are  so  perfectly  gratuitous,  as  well  as  impi- 
ous, that  no  believer  in  the  possibility  of  either  miracle  or  inspiration  can 
entertain  them  for  a  moment.  And  if  thus  shut  up  to  the  assumption  of  a 
miracle,  it  matters  little  whether  it  be  great  or  small.  It  is  enough  that 
God  alone  could  do  it  or  infallibly  predict  it.  As  to  the  disproportion  of 
the  miracle  to  the  occasion,  it  remains  substantially  the  same  on  any  suppo- 
sition which  involves  a  real  miracle  at  all.  If  this  be  admitted,  and  the 
historical  truth  of  the  narrative  assumed,  the  safest  course  is  to  expound  it 
in  its  simplest  and  most  obvious  sense.  Another  question  in  relation  to 
this  verse,  of  far  less  moment  in  itself,  has  given  rise  to  a  vast  amount  of 
learned  and  ingenious  controversy.  This  is  the  question  whether  the  de- 
grees here  mentioned  were  the  graduated  scale  of  a  dial,  or  the  steps  of  a 
staircase.  In  this  dispute,  besides  the  exegetical  writers  on  Isaiah  and  the 
second  book  of  Kings,  we  meet  with  the  great  names  of  Usher,  Petavius, 
Salmasius,  Scaliger,  and  others  of  eminent  repute  but  later  date.  It  is 
important  to  observe  that  there  is  no  word  in  the  text  necessarily  denoting 
such  an  instrument.  By  comparing  the  text  and  margin  of  the  common 
English  Version,  it  would  seem  that  the  translators  were  disposed  to  put 
this  sense  upon  the  words  T2JET2J3  tnx  pibsa,  which  they  render,  the  sun-dial 
of  Ahaz,  but  which  literally  mean,  the  degrees  of  Ahaz  in  (or  by)  the  sun. 
So  too  the  Targum  has  hour-stone  (k^sib  *px),  and  the  Vulgate  horologium. 
The  only  word  corresponding  to  all  this  in  the  original  is  mVsn,  which,  like 
the  Latin  gradus,  first  means  steps  and  then  degrees.  The  nearest  approach 
to  the  description  of  a  dial  is  in  the  words,  degrees  of  Ahaz.  This  circum- 
stance may  show  that  the  reference  to  a  dial,  properly  so  called,  is  not  so 


634  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII. 


obvious  or  necessary  in  the  Hebrew  text  as  in  the  English  Version.  It  was 
further  alleged  by  Scaliger,  and  other  early  writers  on  the  subject,  that 
the  use  of  dials  was  unknown  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah.  Later  investigations 
have  destroyed  the  force  of  this  objection,  and  made  it  probable  that  solar 
chronometers  of  some  sort  were  in  use  among  the  Babylonians  at  a  very  early 
period,  and  that  Ahaz  may  have  borrowed  the  invention  from  them,  as  he 
borrowed  other  things  from  the  Assyrians  (2  Kings  16 :  10).  There  is 
therefore  no  historical  necessity  for  assuming,  with  Scaliger,  that  the  shadow 
here  meant  was  the  shadow  cast  upon  the  steps  of  the  palace,  called  the 
stairs  of  Ahaz  because  he  had  built  them  or  the  house  itself.  The  only 
question  is,  whether  this  is  not  the  simplest  and  most  obvious  explanation  of 
the  words,  and  one  which  entirely  exhausts  their  meaning.  If  so,  we  may 
easily  suppose  the  shadow  to  have  been  visible  from  Hezekiah's  chamber, 
and  the  offered  sign  to  have  been  suggested  to  the  Prophet  by  the  sight  of 
it.  This  hypothesis  relieves  us  from  the  necessity  of  accounting  for  the 
division  into  ten  or  rather  twenty  degrees,  as  Hezekiah  was  allowed  to 
choose  between  a  precession  and  a  retrocession  of  the  same  extent  (2  Kings 
20;  9).  These  two  opinions  are  by  no  means  so  irreconcilable  as  they 
may  at  first  sight  seem.  Even  supposing  the  degrees  of  Ahaz  to  have 
been  an  instrument  constructed  for  the  purpose  of  measuring  time,  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  must  have  been  a  dial  of  modern  or  of  any  very  artificial 
structure.  A  Jewish  writer,  quoted  by  Grotius,  describes  it  as  a  globe 
within  a  concave  hemisphere,  casting  its  shadow  on  the  concave  surface. 
But  besides  the  arbitrary  character  of  this  supposition,  it  does  not  account 
for  the  description  of  the  shadow  as  descending  with  the  sun,  since  the 
shadow  on  such  an  instrument  would  ascend  as  the  sun  descended.  Knobel 
imagines  that  there  may  have  been  an  artificial  eminence  or  mound,  with 
steps  or  terraces  surrounding  it,  on  which  the  shadow  cast  by  an  obelisk  or 
gnomon  at  the  summit  would  grow  longer  as  the  day  declined,  or  in  other 
words,  descend  with  the  descending  sun.  But  a  still  more  simple  supposi- 
tion is  that  the  gnomon  was  erected  on  a  staircase  of  suitable  exposure,  or 
that  a  column  at  the  top  cast  a  shadow  which  was  found  available  for  a 
rude  measurement  of  time.  The  minor  questions,  whether  the  gnomon  was 
designed  to  be  such,  or  was  erected  for  some  other  purpose,  and  whether 
tvbvQ  means  ordinary  steps  or  astronomical  degrees,  do  not  affect  the  essen- 
tial fact,  that  the  recession  of  the  shadow  was  perceptible  in  such  a  situation 
and  on  such  a  scale  as  to  be  altogether  incontestable,  mtaan  may  either 
be  connected  with  what  goes  before  {the  shadow  of  the  degrees),  or  con- 
strued as  an  accusative  of  measure  {the  degrees  which  it  has  gone  down), 

V.  9.  A  writing  of  Hezekiah ,  king  of  Judah,  when  he  was  sick,  and 
lived  (i.  e.  recovered)  from  his  sickness.     This  is  the  title  or  inscription  of 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.   XXXVIII.  635 


the  following  psalm  (vs.  10-20),  not  inserted  by  a  copyist  or  compiler,  but 
prefixed,  according  to  the  ancient  oriental  usage,  by  the  author  himself,  and 
therefore  forming  an  integral  part  of  the  text.  The  title  Btfe8,  prefixed  to 
several  of  the  Psalms,  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  as  an  orthographical  variation 
of  the  word  (apo?)  here  used.  Others  derive  the  former  from  a  different 
root,  but  suppose  its  form  to  be  copied  from  the  one  before  us.  (See  Heng- 
stenberg  on  Psalm  16 :  1.)  The  specific  senses  put  upon  this  word  by  the 
Septuagint  (prayer),  the  Targum  (confession),  and  Gesenius,  (song),  are 
inferred  from  the  contents  of  the  passage  itself,  and  do  not  belong  to  the  He- 
brew word,  which  simply  means  a  writing.  The  particle  prefixed  is  strictly 
equivalent  neither  to  by  nor  of,  but  means  belonging  to,  as  in  the  frequent 
formulas  Tnb  and  nxs^ab  in  the  titles  of  the  Psalms,  belonging  to  David  (as 
the  author),  belonging  to  the  chief  musician  (as  the  performer).  The  con- 
jecture of  Grotius,  that  Isaiah  dictated  the  psalm,  or  put  it  into  Hezekiah's 
mouth,  is  perfectly  gratuitous.  That  Hezekiah  should  compose  a  psalm,  is 
not  more  strange  than  that  he  should  make  a  collection  of  proverbs  (Prov. 
25:  1).  It  would  have  been  far  more  strange  if  one  so  much  like  David, 
in  character  and  spirit,  had  not  followed  his  example  in  the  practice  of 
devotional  composition.  The  inspiration  and  canonical  authority  of  this 
production  are  clear  from  its  having  been  incorporated  by  Isaiah  in  his  pro- 
phecies, although  omitted  in  the  second  book  of  Kings.  The  questions 
raised  by  some  interpreters,  as  to  its  antiquity  and  genuineness,  are  founded 
on  the  mere  possibility,  that  the  passage  may  be  of  later  date  and  by  another 
writer.  So  far  as  we  have  evidence,  either  external  or  internal,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  ground  for  critical  misgiving.  The  n  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  clause  does  not  mean  concerning  his  sickness  and  indicate  the  subject 
of  the  composition,  but,  as  usual  before  an  infinitive,  denotes  the  time  of  the 
action.  This  is  by  most  writers  understood  to  be,  after  he  had  been  sick 
and  had  recovered,  as  explained  in  the  Vulgate  (cum  aegrotasset  et  conva- 
luisset).  The  words,  in  themselves  considered,  would  more  naturally  seem 
to  mean,  during  his  sickness  and  recovery,  and  are  accordingly  explained  by 
Hitzig.  There  is  nothing  in  the  psalm  itself  at  all  inconsistent  with  the 
supposition,  that  it  was  conceived,  and  perhaps  composed,  if  not  reduced  to 
writing,  before  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  promise  in  the  king's  recovery. 
The  contrary  hypothesis  has  tended  to  embarrass  and  perplex  the  interpret- 
ation, as  will  be  more  distinctly  seen  below.  The  idiomatic  phrase  to  live 
from  sickness,  in  the  sense  of  convalescence  or  recovery,  occurs  repeatedly 
elsewhere,  either  fully  or  in  an  abbreviated  form.  (See  for  example  1  Kings 
1  :  2.  Gen.  20 :  7.) 

V.  10.  I  said  in  the  pause  of  my  days  I  shall  go  into  the  gates  of  the 
grave,  I  am  deprived  of  the  rest  of  my  years.     The  pronoun  of  the  first 


636  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII. 


person  does  not  seem  to  be  emphatic  ©r  distinctive,  as  it  usually  is  when 
separately  written,  but  appears  to  be  expressed  for  the  sake  of  a  euphonic 
or  rhythmical  effect.  The  words  '•a*  "'ma  may  naturally  qualify  either  the 
foregoing  or  the  following  verb,  I  said  in  the  pause  of  my  days,  or,  in  the 
pause  of  my  days  I  shall  go ;  but  the  latter  construction  is  favoured  by  the 
accents,  and  by  the  analogy  of  the  following  verse,  where  *TOpDK  is  immedi- 
ately succeeded  by  the  words  which  he  uttered.  The  explanation  of  Mtfl 
•'a*,  as  meaning  the  blood  of  my  days,  is  unnatural  in  itself,  and  requires  an 
arbitrary  change  of  pointing.  Kimchi  gives  ""ai  the  sense  of  cutting  off 
(nrvns),  derived  from  na^i.  (See  above,  the  note  on  ch.  6:  5.)  Most 
interpreters  regard  it  as  synonymous  with  1B*J  silence,  stillness,  though  they 
differ  as  to  the  application  of  the  figures.  Scheidius  supposes  it  to  mean 
the  standing  still  of  the  sun,  or  its  apparent  pause  at  noonday,  and  then 
noon  itself,  or  what  the  Greeks  call  r\  [itorjupQia  tov  fliov,  and  ourselves  the 
meridian  of  life.  This  may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Septuagint  version 
(iv  tcp  vxpei  tav  fjfiEQwv  uov),  in  the  height  (or  zenith)  of  my  days,  although 
Clericus  and  others  confidently  allege  that  the  Seventy  for  w  read  iai,  of 
which  there  is  no  example  elsewhere.  Umbreit  understands  by  the  stillness 
of  his  days  the  period  of  life  when  the  passions  cease  to  govern  and  the 
character  becomes  more  calm.  Gesenius  applies  it  to  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiah,  and  supposes  him  to  mean  that  he  was  about  to  be  cut  off  when  he  had 
every  prospect  of  a  peaceful  reign.  Even  Kimchi's  sense  of  cutting  off  is 
reconcilable  with  this  explanation  of  *WI  as  meaning  silence,  then  cessa- 
tion. The  general  idea  is  correctly  given  in  the  Vulgate  (dimidio),  which 
Gesenius  gratuitously  thinks  may  be  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  Latin  demi, 
but  which  is  much  more  likely  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  analogous 
expression  in  Ps.  10*2:  25,  I  said,  O  my  God,  take  me  not  away  in  the 
midst  of  my  days  (^n*  k,:£na).  There  is  not  the  slightest  ground,  however, 
for  supposing  this  last  to  be  the  true  text  here.  The  preposition  before 
gates  may  mean  either  to,  through,  or  into ;  but  the  last  is  its  usual  sense 
after  verbs  of  motion.  As  parallel  expressions  may  be  mentioned  the  gates 
of  death  (Ps.  9 :  14)  and  the  gates  of  hell  (Matth.  16  :  18).  The  verb  Ng| 
means  to  visit,  and  especially  to  visit  for  the  purpose  either  of  inspection  or 
punishment.  From  the  former  of  these  applications  springs  the  secondary 
sense  of  missing  or  finding  wanting.  This  is  adopted  here  by  Gesenius,  so  as 
to  make  the  last  clause  mean,  I  shall  be  missed  (by  my  acquaintances  and 
friends)  during  the  rest  of  my  years.  But  nature  and  the  context  show 
that  Hezekiah's  thoughts  were  running  upon  what  he  was  to  miss  himself. 
Besides,  the  future  meaning  given  to  the  preterite  is,  in  this  case,  gratuitous, 
and  therefore  ungrammatical.  A  much  better  use  of  the  same  general  sense 
is  made  by  those  who  take  the  Pual  as  a  causative  passive,  J  am  made  to 
miss  or  lose  the  rest  of  my  years,  or  as  the  English  Version  has  it,  J  am 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVIII.  637 

deprived  of  them.  It  is  better  still,  however,  because  more  in  accordance 
with  the  tone  and  spirit  of  the  whole  composition,  to  understand  the  verb  as 
expressing  not  mere  loss  or  privation,  but  penal  infliction.  It  was  because 
Hezekiah  regarded  the  threatened  abbreviation  of  his  life  as  a  token  of  God's 
wrath,  that  he  so  importunately  deprecated  it.  Instead  of  the  remainder, 
Cube  and  Dathe  read  the  best  part  of  my  days,  but  without  any  adequate 
authority  from  usage. 

V.  11.  I  said,  I  shall  not  see  Jah,  Jah  in  the  land  of  the  living ;  1 
shall  not  behold  man  again  (or  longer)  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  world. 
m  m  is  not  an  error  of  the  text  for  mm  (Houbigant),  but  an  intensive  repe- 
tition similar  to  those  in  vs.  17,  19.  Or  the  second  may  be  added  to  explain 
and  qualify  the  first.  He  did  expect  to  see  God,  but  not  in  the  land  of  the 
living.  This  is  better  than  to  make  the  second  m  the  subject  of  a  distinct 
proposition,  as  Luzzatto  does,  I  shall  not  see  Jah,  (for)  Jah  (is  only  to  be 
seen)  in  the  land  of  the  living.  The  same  writer  regards  this  as  the  appro- 
priate name  of  God  considered  as  a  gracious  being.  He  supposes  it  to  have 
been  originally  an  exclamation  of  delight  or  joy,  corresponding  to  m  (oval, 
vae)  as  an  exclamation  of  distress  or  fear,  from  the  combination  of  which 
arose  the  name  mm,  denoting  an  object  both  of  love  and  fear.  For  other 
explanations  of  the  name  m,  see  above,  on  ch.  12:  1  and  26:  4.  The 
land  of  the  living  is  not  the  Holy  Land  (Hendewerk),  but  the  present  life. 
The  preposition  t&  may  connect  what  follows  either  with  the  subject  or  the 
object  of  the  verb ;  J  with  the  inhabitants,  or,  man  with  the  inhabitants. 
Vin,  which  strictly  means  cessation,  is  regarded  by  the  older  writers  as  a 
description  of  this  transitory  life  or  fleeting  world.  Vitringa  objects,  that  he 
would  not  have  regretted  leaving  such  a  world,  and  therefore  applies  bnn  to 
the  state  of  death.  J,  with  (or  among)  the  inhabitants  of  (the  land  of) 
stillness,  shall  no  more  see  man.  This  is  adopted  by  Gesenius  and  the  other 
modern  writers.  It  may  be  objected,  however,  that  it  needlessly  violates  the 
parallelism,  on  which  so  much  stress  is  elsewhere  laid,  and  which  plainly 
indicates,  in  this  case,  that  the  last  words  of  the  verse  bear  the  same  relation 
to  I  shall  not  see  man,  that  the  words  in  the  land  of  the  living  bear  to  I 
shall  not  see  Jah.  If  the  latter  designate  the  place  in  which  he  was  no 
more  to  see  God,  then  the  former  would  naturally  seem  to  designate  the 
place  in  which  he  was  no  more  to  see  man.  Another  reason  for  preferring 
the  old  interpretation  is  afforded  by  the  obvious  affinity  between  the  expres- 
sion here  and  that  in  Ps.  49 :  2.  Hear  this  all  the  nations,  give  ear  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  world  (ibn  *zv*).  That  the  text  in  one  of  these  cases  is 
to  be  corrected  by  the  other,  or  that  one  of  them  arose  from  misapprehension 
of  the  other,  are  superficial  and  uncritical  assumptions.  That  the  one  was 
suggested  by  the  other,  but  with  an  intentional  change  of  form,  so  as  to  fur- 


638  ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVIII. 

nish  two  descriptions  of  the  present  life,  alike  in  sound  but  not  identical  in 
sense,  is  not  only  probable  in  itself,  but  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  genius 
of  the  language  and  the  usage  of  the  sacred  writers.  (See  above,  ch.  37 : 
24.)  As  to  the  objection,  that  Hezekiah  would  not  have  been  loth  to 
leave  a  world  so  transient  and  unsatisfying,  it  is  not  only  contradicted  by 
experience,  but  admits  of  this  solution,  that  its  transitory  nature  was  the 
very  thing  for  which  he  grieved. 

V.  12.  My  dwelling  is  plucked  up  and  uncovered  by  me  (or  away  from 
me)  like  a  shepherd's  tent,  I  have  rolled  up,  like  the  weaver,  my  life ; 
from  the  thrum  he  will  cut  me  off;  from  day  to  night  thou  wilt  finish  me. 
The  same  thing  is  here  represented  by  two  figures.  The  first  is  that  of  a 
tent,  the  stakes  of  which  are  pulled  up,  and  the  covering  removed,  with  a 
view  to  departure.  The  usual  sense  of  *fa  (generation)  seems  inappropriate 
here.  For  that  of  age  or  life  there  is  no  authority  in  usage.  That  of 
dwelling  is  founded  on  the  Arabic  analogy,  and  yields  a  good  sense,  not 
only  here  but  in  Ps.  49 :  20.  Most  interpreters  explain  inbaa  as  meaning 
removed  or  departed,  a  sense  which  it  has  not  elsewhere.  Its  usual  sense 
uncovered  is  entirely  appropriate,  and  exactly  descriptive  of  a  part  of  the 
process  of  striking  a  tent.  The  ^sa  may  then  be  understood,  either  as  refer- 
ring the  act  described  to  the  speaker,  or  as  making  him  the  object  from 
which  the  removal  was  to  take  place.  On  the  latter  hypothesis,  some  of  the 
German  writers  enter  into  profound  discussions  whether  Hezekiah  meant  to 
identify  the  Ich  or  personal  principle  with  his  body  or  his  soul,  or  with  both, 
or  with  neither.  The  second  figure  is  that  of  a  web  completed  and  removed 
by  the  weaver  from  the  loom.  The  old  interpretation  of  ■'n'iBp  makes  it 
mean  cut  off ;  the  modern  one,  rolled  up ;  the  allusion  in  either  case  being 
to  a  weaver's  mode  of  finishing  his  work.  To  make  this  verb  passive  or 
reflexive,  is  entirely  arbitrary.  Still  more  so  is  a  change  of  person  from  the 
first  to  the  second,  since  the  same  succession  of  the  first,  second,  and  third 
persons  reappears  in  the  next  verse.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  make  the 
verb  causative  (1  have  caused  him  to  cut  out  or  roll  up  my  life).  The  true  so- 
lution is  proposed  by  Calvin,  viz.  that  he  first  thinks  of  himself  as  the  guilty 
cause  of  his  own  death,  and  then  of  God  as  the  efficient  agent.  Umbreit 
imagines  that  he  here  describes  himself  as  dying  by  a  voluntary  act,  as 
Schleiermacher  is  said  by  one  of  his  biographers  to  have  done,  instead  of 
dying  like  other  men  because  he  could  not  help  it.  This  is  not  only  unna- 
tural and  irrational  in  itself,  but  inconsistent  with  the  context,  where  the  king 
is  represented  as  any  thing  rather  than  a  voluntary  sufferer.  According  to 
the  latest  writers,  n^a  does  not  mean  with  pining  sickness,  nor  from  a  state 
of  exaltation,  but  from  the  thrum  (as  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible) 
i.  e.  the  ends  of  the  threads  by  which  the  web  is  fastened  to  the  beam. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII.  639 

Lowth  gives  the  same  sense  by  employing  the  more  general  term  loom. 
From  day  to  night  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  before  to-morrow,  within 
the  space  of  one  day.  The  verb  in  the  last  clause  might,  without  violence 
to  etymology  or  usage,  be  explained  to  mean,  thou  wilt  (or  do  thou)  make 
me  whole.  But  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  in  giving  it  the  opposite 
sense  of  thou  wilt  make  an  end  of  me.  Some  suppose  moreover  that  the 
figure  of  a  weaver  and  his  web  is  still  continued,  and  that  the  idea  expressed 
in  the  last  clause  is  that  of  finishing  a  piece  of  work. 

V.  13.  I  set  {him  before  me)  till  the  morning  (i.  e.  all  night)  as  a  lion, 
(saying)  so  will  he  break  all  my  bones ;  from  day  to  night  thou  wilt  make 
an  end  of  me.     Either  these  last  words  are  repeated  in  a  different  sense,  or 
else  the  repetition  shows  that  they  have  no  special  reference,  in  the  forego- 
ing verse,  to  the  process  of  weaving.    Gesenius  seems  to  treat  with  contempt 
the  suggestion  of  an  inadvertent  repetition  on  the  part  of  some  transcriber, 
though  he  has  no  difficulty  in  adopting  it  when  it  can  serve  a  useful  purpose. 
Most  writers  disregard  the  masoretic  interpunction,  and  connect  like  a  lion 
with  the  second  clause.     They  are  then  obliged  to  take  flp^lj  in  the  sense 
of  I  reckoned  (i.  e.  counted  the  hours,  or  reckoned  that  as  a  lion  etc.),  or  as 
meaning  I  endured,  or  I  composed  myself,  neither  of  which  has  any  sufficient 
ground  in  the  usage  of  the  language,  and  the  last  of  which  requires  but  to  be 
arbitrarily  supplied.     Jarchi  adheres  to  the  masoretic  accents,  and  explains 
the  first  clause,  I  likened  myself  to  (or  made  myself  like)  a  lion  (i.  e.  roared) 
until  the  morning.     To  this  it  has  been  objected,  not  without  reason,  that 
as  the  crushing  of  the  bones  involves  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  lion  (compare 
Ps.  7 :  3),  we  then  have  the  same  figure  used  to  represent  both  the  suf- 
ferer and  the  author  of  his  sufferings,  which  is  forced  and  unnatural.     The 
masoretic  interpunction  may,  however,  be  retained  without  this  inconve- 
nience, by  explaining  *iy*rt  in  accordance  with  its  usage  in  Ps.  16 :  8  and 
119:  30.     In  the  former  case,  the  Psalmist  says,  I  have  set  Jehovah  before 
me  always,  i.  e.  I  continually  recognise  his  presence,  or  regard  him  as  pres- 
ent.    In  the  other  case  the  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed  by  the  verb 
alone,  with  an  ellipsis  of  the  qualifying  phrase.   Thy  judgments  have  I  placed 
(i.  e.  before  me).     Supposing  a  similar  ellipsis  here,  the  sense  will  be,  I  set 
him  before  me,  i.  e.  viewed  him  as  present,  imagined  or  conceived  of  him  as 
a  lion,  and  expected  him  to  act  as  such,  saying,  so  (i.  e.  as  a  lion)  he  will 
crush  all  my  bones.     If  this  be  the  true  construction,  it  removes  all  ground 
for  making  fear,  or  pain,  or  the  disease,  the  nominative  of  the  verb  will 
break,  and  leaves  it  to  agree  with  Jehovah,  as  the  natural  subject  of  the 
sentence.    This  construction  is  further  recommended  by  its  giving  uniformity 
of  meaning  to  the  clauses,  as  descriptive  of  the  sufferer's  apprehensions. 


640  ISAlAH,   CHAP.  XXXVIII. 

V.  14.  Like  a  swallow  (or)  a  crane,  (or  like  a  twittering  swallow?) 
so  I  chirp ;  I  moan  like  the  dove ;  my  eyes  are  weak  (with  looking)  upward 
(or  on  high)  ;  O  Jehovah,  I  am  oppressed,  undertake  for  me  (or  be  my 
surety).  In  the  first  clause  the  moanings  of  the  sufferer  are  compared,  as 
in  many  other  cases,  to  the  voice  of  certain  animals.  The  dove  is  often 
spoken  of  in  such  connexions,  and  the  mention  of  it  here  makes  it  probable 
that  the  parallel  expressions  are  also  descriptive  of  a  bird  or  birds,  oto  is  the 
common  Hebrew  word  for  horse,  and  is  so  explained  even  here  by  Aquila, 
who  retains  iws  without  translation.  Theodotion  retains  both,  but  writes 
the  first  ah'  (D>1t?)>  which  Jerome  thinks  is  probably  the  true  text.  This 
same  reading  appears  as  a  Keri  in  the  masoretic  text  of  Jer.  8:  7,  the  only 
other  place  where  the  word  seems  to  signify  a  bird.  The  old  rabbinical 
interpretation  gives  to  D*io  the  sense  of  crane,  and  to  rittg  that  of  swallow. 
Bochart  reverses  them  and  undertakes  to  show  that  **»  is  the  Hebrew  word 
for  crane.  This  word  affords  a  curious  instance  of  the  way  in  which  Gese- 
nius  sometimes  leaves  his  followers  and  transcribers  in  the  lurch.  In  his 
Commentary,  while  he  speaks  of  Twaj  as  a  word  of  doubtful  import,  he  gives 
Bochart's  explanation  as  upon  the  whole  the  most  probable.  Some  of  his 
copyists  go  further  and  allege  that  it  certainly  means  crane.  In  the  mean 
time  Gesenius,  in  his  Manual  Lexicon,  rejects  Bochart's  proofs  as  invalid,  and 
explains  "flas  as  a  description  of  the  gyratory  motion  of  the  swallow.  In  the 
Thesaurus,  this  is  abandoned  in  its  turn,  and  the  word  explained  to  mean 
chirping  or  twittering.  Maurer  objects  to  the  explanation  of  WN0  as  a  mere 
descriptive  epithet,  that  in  Jer.  8 :  7  we  have  iwi  bio  as  two  independent 
substantives.  To  this  Gesenius  replies,  that  the  epithet  is  there  used  as  a 
poetical  substitute  for  the  noun,  or  perhaps  the  name  of  a  particular  species. 
On  any  supposition,  the  comparison  before  us  is  evidently  meant  to  be  de- 
scriptive of  inarticulate  moans  or  murmurs.  The  reference  of  the  verbs  in 
the  first  clause  to  past  time  (I  chirped,  I  moaned),  though  assumed  by  most 
interpreters,  is  perfectly  gratuitous,  when  the  future  proper  yields  so  good  a 
sense.  This  violation  of  the  syntax  has  arisen  from  assuming  that  the  clause 
must  be  a  retrospective  description  of  something  already  past,  and  not  an 
expression  of  present  feeling  such  as  he  might  have  uttered  at  the  moment. 
That  this  last  is  no  unnatural  hypothesis,  is  certain  from  the  fact  that  all 
interpreters  adopt  it  in  the  other  clause.  But  if  that  may  be  the  language 
of  the  sufferer  at  the  time  of  his  distress,  it  is  equally  natural,  or  rather  more 
so,  to  explain  the  first  clause  in  the  same  way.  Clericus  understands  iPf  as 
meaning  lifted  up,  which  he  admits  to  be  a  mere  conjecture  having  no 
foundation  in  usage,  but  rendered  necessary  by  the  addition  of  dnob.  Most 
interpreters  regard  it  as  an  instance  of  constructio  praegnans,  and  retain  the 
proper  meaning  of  the  verb.  Hitzig  makes  hpttJS  an  imperative,  and  identi- 
fies it  with  the  Arabic  (J^ti+z  to  love  tenderly  or  ardently.    Incline  thy  heart 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII.  641 

to  me.  There  is,  however,  no  necessity  or  warrant  for  departing  from  the 
Hebrew  usage  of  pes  to  do  violence  or  oppress.  The  older  writers  supply 
a  definite  subject,  such  as  death,  my  disease,  or  the  like.  Ewald  makes  it 
impersonal,  it  is  oppressed  to  me,  i.  e.  I  am  oppressed.  Gesenius  treats  it 
as  a  noun,  {there  is)  oppression  to  me,  and  explains  the  Metheg  as  a  mere 
sign  of  the  secondary  accent.  Junius  and  Tremellius  render  ^5*}?j  weave 
me  through  (pertexe  me),  i.  e.  do  not  cut  out  the  unfinished  web.  But  this 
return  to  the  metaphor  of  v.  12,  after  alluding  in  the  mean  time  to  a  lion,  to 
a  swallow,  to  a  crane,  and  to  a  dove,  would  be  exceedingly  unnatural,  and 
although  not  impossible  can  only  be  assumed  in  case  of  extreme  exegetical 
necessity,  which  certainly  has  no  existence  here.  The  same  word  is  used 
in  Ps.  119:  122,  in  the  sense  of  undertake  for  me  or  be  my  surety,  i.  e. 
interpose  between  me  and  my  enemies.  The  reference  is  rather  to  protec- 
tion than  to  justification.  Gill  carries  out  the  metaphor  to  an  extreme  by 
saying  that  Hezekiah  here  represents  his  disease  as  a  bailiff  that  had  ar- 
rested him,  and  was  carrying  him.  to  the  prison  of  the  grave,  and  therefore 
prays  that  the  Lord  would  bail  him  or  rescue  him  out  of  his  hands, 

V.  15.  What  shall  I  say?  He  hath  both  spoken  to  me,  and  himself 
hath  done  (it)  ;  1  shall  go  softly  all  my  years  for  the  bitterness  of  my  soul. 
This,  which  is  substantially  the  common  version,  is  the  one  adopted  by  most 
modern  writers,  who  regard  the  verse  as  an  expression  of  surprise  and  joy  at 
the  deliverance  experienced.  What  shall  I say  ?  i.e.  how  shall  I  express 
my  gratitude  and  wonder?  He  hath  said  and  done  it,  he  has  promised  and 
performed,  perhaps  with  an  implication  that  the  promise  was  no  sooner  given 
than  fulfilled.  The  recollection  of  this  signal  mercy  he  is  resolved  to  cher- 
ish all  his  years,  i.  e.  throughout  his  life,  by  going  softly,  solemnly,  or  slowly, 
on  account  of  the  bitterness  of  his  soul,  i.  e.  in  recollection  of  his  sufferings. 
Some,  however,  understand  these  last  words  to  mean,  in  the  bitterness  of 
my  soul,  i.  e.  in  perpetual  contrition  and  humility.  But  the  preposition  fe*  is 
properly  expressive,  not  of  the  manner  of  his  going,  but  of  its  occasion.  The 
verb  rtt3J*  occurs  only  here  and  in  Ps.  42:  5,  where  it  is  commonly  agreed 
to  signify  the  solemn  march  of  the  people  in  procession  to  Mount  Zion.  It 
would  here  seem  to  be  equivalent  to  the  phrase  ax  -?n  applied  to  Ahab  in 
1  Kings  21 :  27.  Another  interpretation  of  the  verse,  which  might,  at  first 
sight,  seem  more  natural,  regards  it  as  the  language  of  Hezekiah  during  his 
sickness,  and  as  expressive,  not  of  joy  and  wonder,  but  of  submission.  TVhal 
shall  I  say,  in  the  way  of  complaint  ?  He  hath  both  said  and  done  it,  i.  e. 
threatened  and  performed  it.  But  this  view  of  the  first  clause  cannot  be 
reconciled  with  any  natural  interpretation  of  the  second,  where  the  phrase 
all  my  years  is  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  he  expected  to  die 
forthwith. 

41 


642  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII. 

V.  16.  Lord,  upon  them  they  live,  and  as  to  every  thing  in  them  is  the 
life  of  my  spirit,  and  thou  wilt  recover  me  and  make  me  live.    This  exceed- 
ingly obscure  verse  is  now  most  generally  understood  to  mean,  that  life  in 
general,  and  the  life  of  Hezekiah  in  particular,  was  dependent  on  the  power 
and  promise  of  God.     Upon  them,  the  promise  and  performance  implied  in 
the  verbs  said  and  did  of  the  preceding  verse,  they  live,  i.  e.  men  indefinitely 
live.     The  sense  of  £s,  when  construed  thus  with  mn,  is  clear  from  such 
examples  as  Gen.  20 :  27.  Deut.  8 :  6.     Some  suppose  ba  to  govern  ■wfr, 
notwithstanding  the  intervening  word  fria,  and  the  prefix  \  which  must  then 
be  pleonastic.  All  the  life  of  my  spirit  (is)  in  them.     A  simpler  construc- 
tion is  to  make  bab  an  adverbial  phrase  meaning  as  to  (or  with  respect  to) 
every  thing.     The  other  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  explain  Btfto 
as  referring  to  the  bones  of  Hezekiah,  or  his  years,  or  his  subjects,  or  those 
over  whom  (God  is)  Lord,  are  so  forced,  that  the  one  first  given,  notwith- 
standing its  obscurity  and  harshness,  seems  entitled  to  the  preference.     The 
explanation  of  the  future  and  imperative  in  the  last  clause  as  referring  to 
past  time  (thou  hast  recovered  me  and  made  me  live)  is  not  only  arbitrary 
but  gratuitous,  as  it  assumes  without  necessity  that  such  a  prayer  or  expec- 
tation could  not  have  been  uttered  after  Hezekiah's  recovery,  whereas  it  is  a 
natural  expression  of  desire  that  what  had  been  begun  might  be  continued 
and  completed,     ^Tin  is  not  an  infinitive,  which  would  here  take  the  con- 
struct form,  but  an  imperative.     In  either  case,  its  meaning  is  determined 
by  the  foregoing  future,  so  that  both  verbs  may  take  the  future  form  in 
translation.     The  original  form  of  expression  may,  however,  be  retained  in 
English,  by  omitting  the  auxiliary  in  the  second  future. 

V.  17.  Behold,  to  peace  (is  turned)  my  bitter  bitterness,  and  thou 
hast  loved  my  soul  from  the  pit  of  destruction,  because  thou  hast  cast  behind 
thy  back  all  my  sins.  The  idea  of  change  or  conversion  must  either  be  sup- 
plied, or  supposed  to  be  expressed  by  is,  which  is  then  the  preterite  of  W, 
not  elsewhere  used  in  Kal,  although  the  Hiphil  is  of  frequent  occurrence. 
Most  of  the  late  writers  understand  io  *b  ^e  as  an  emphatic  or  intensive 
repetition,  of  which  there  are  several  examples  in  this  passage  (vs.  11,  19), 
and  suppose  the  verb  to  be  suppressed,  or  suggested  by  the  preposition  b. 
The  English  Bible,  and  some  other  versions,  put  an  opposite  meaning  on 
the  clause,  as  a  description,  not  of  his  restoration  but  of  his  affliction.  For 
peace  I  had  great  bitterness,  or,  on  my  peace  (came)  great  bitterness.  The 
other  interpretation  agrees  better  with  the  usage  of  the  preposition  and 
makes  the  parallelism  more  exact.  We  have  here  another  instance  of  preg- 
nant construction,  to  love  from,  i.  e.  so  to  love  as  to  deliver  from.  This 
sense  is  expressed  in  the  English  Bible  by  a  circumlocution,  ^a  means 
properly  nonentity,  annihilation,  here  put  for  perdition  or  destruction  from 


ISAIAH,   CHAP.  XXXVIII. 

the  presence  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power  (2  Thess.  1  i^rjr 
The  last  clause  shows  that  Hezekiah  regarded  the  threatened  destruction  as 
a  punishment  of  sin.  To  cast  behind  one,  or  behind  one's  back,  in  Hebrew 
and  Arabic,  is  to  forget,  lose  sight  of,  or  exclude  from  view.  The  opposite 
idea  is  expressed  by  the  figure  of  setting  or  keeping  before  one's  eyes.  (See 
Ps.  90:  8.  109:  14,  15.  Jer.  16:  17.  Hos.  7:  2.) 

V.  18.  For  the  grave  shall  not  confess  thee  (nor)  death  praise  thee ; 
they  that  go  down  to  the  pit  shall  not  hope  for  thy  truth.  Here,  as  often 
in  the  Psalms,  the  loss  of  the  opportunity  of  praising  God  is  urged  as  a  rea- 
son, not  only  why  he  should  be  loth  to  die,  but  why  God  should  preserve  him. 
(See  Ps.  6:6.  88  :  11,12.)  It  does  not  follow  from  these  words,  either  that 
Hezekiah  had  no  expectation  of  a  future  state,  or  that  the  soul  remains  un- 
conscious till  the  resurrection.  The  true  explanation  of  the  words  is  given 
by  Calvin,  viz.  that  the  language  is  that  of  extreme  agitation  and  distress, 
in  which  the  prospect  of  the  future  is  absorbed  in  contemplation  of  the 
present,  and  also  that  so  far  as  he  does  think  of  futurity,  it  is  upon  the 
supposition  of  God's  wrath.  Regarding  death,  in  this  case,  as  a  proof  of  the 
divine  displeasure,  he  cannot  but  look  upon  it  as  the  termination  of  his  sol- 
emn praises.  The  truth  mentioned  in  the  last  clause  is  the  truth  of  God's 
promises,  to  hope  for  which  is  to  expect  the  promised  blessing,  -pin  mh 
strictly  means,  shall  not  acknowledge  thee,  with  special  reference  to  the 
acknowledgment  of  favours,  or  thanksgiving.  The  influence  of  the  negative 
extends  to  the  second  clause,  as  in  ch.  23  :  4.    (See  above,  p.  407.) 

V.  19.  The  living,  the  living,  he  shall  thank  thee,  like  me  (or  as  I  do) 
to-day ;  father  to  sons  shall  make  known,  with  respect  to  thy  truth,  i.  e.  the 
truth  of  thy  promises,  as  in  the  verse  preceding.  Only  the  living  could 
praise  God  in  that  way  to  which  the  writer  was  accustomed,  and  on  which 
his  eye  is  here  fixed,  with  special  reference,  no  doubt,  to  the  external 
service  of  the  temple.  The  last  clause  must  be  taken  in  a  general  sense,  as 
Hezekiah  was  himself  still  childless. 

V.  20.  Jehovah  to  save  me !  And  my  songs  we  will  play,  all  the  days 
of  our  life,  at  the  house  of  Jehovah.  The  obvious  ellipsis  in  the  first  clause 
may  be  variously  filled  with  came,  hastened,  commanded,  was  ready,  be 
pleased,  or  with  the  verb  is,  as  an  idiomatic  periphrasis  of  the  future,  is  to 
save  for  will  save.  The  reference  to  the  future  and  the  past  is  equally 
admissible,  since  God,  in  one  sense,  had  already  saved  him,  and  in  another 
was  to  save  him  still.  WWO  is  properly  the  music  of  stringed  instruments,, 
or  a  song  intended  to  be  so  accompanied.  The  word  may  here  be  used  in 
the  more  general  sense  of  song  or  music ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  need  of 


644  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXVIII. 

excluding  the  original  and  proper  meaning.  The  singular  form,  my  song, 
refers  to  Hezekiah  as  the  author  of  this  composition  ;  the  plurals,  we  will 
sing  and  our  lives,  to  the  multitude  who  might  be  expected  to  join  in  his 
public  thanksgiving,  not  only  at  first,  but  in  after  ages.  The  use  of  te  is 
explained  by  some  as  an  allusion  to  the  elevated  site  of  the  temple ;  but  it 
seems  to  be  rather  a  license  of  construction,  similar  to  our  promiscuous  use 
of  at  and  in,  with  names  of  towns.  It  is  a  possible  but  not  a  necessary 
supposition,  that  this  particle  may  here  denote  upward  motion,  as  in  a  pro- 
cession from  the  lower  city  to  the  temple.  We  will  sing  or  play  my  songs, 
all  the  days  of  our  lives,  up  to  the  house  of  the  Lord.  The  general  sense 
in  either  case  is  that  of  public  and  perpetual  praise,  the  promise  of  which 
closes  this  remarkable  production. 

V.  21.  And  Isaiah  said,  Let  them  take  a  lump  (or  cake)  of  Jigs,  and 
rub  them  (or  lay  them  softened)  on  the  boil  (or  inflammation),  and  he  shall 
live  (or  let  him  live),  i.  e.  recover.  The  indirect  construction,  preferred  by 
most  of  the  modern  writers,  that  they  should  take,  and  that  he  might  recover, 
is  entirely  unnecessary,  since  the  words  may  naturally  be  regarded  as  the 
very  words  spoken  by  the  Prophet  himself.  m»  seems  properly  to  have  the 
sense  of  rubbing,  either  in  reference  to  the  application,  or  to  the  preparing 
of  the  figs  by  trituration.  The  latter  explanation  is  now  commonly  preferred. 
Grotius  follows  some  of  the  rabbinical  interpreters  in  the  assumption  that  the 
natural  effect  of  such  an  application  would  have  been  injurious.  But  al- 
though this  may  seem  to  magnify  the  miracle,  it  is  a  gratuitous  assumption, 
and  directly  contradicted  by  the  modern  oriental  practice  of  applying  figs  to 
pestilential  pustules,  for  the  purpose  of  maturing  their  discharge.  Such  a 
pustule  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  denoted  by  fTOj  both  here  and  else- 
where, although  some  choose  to  adhere  to  what  they  think  the  primary  sense 
of  inflammation.  Hitzig  makes  this  noun  the  subject  of  the  verb  w  (that 
it  might  be  healed)  on  the  authority  of  Lev.  13  :  10,  14,  15  ;  but  the  analogy 
of  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter  now  before  us  seems  to  be  decisive  in  favour 
of  the  usual  construction,  which  makes  the  verb  refer  to  Hezekiah. 

V.  22.  And  Hezekiah  said,  What  sign  that  I  shall  go  up  (to)  the 
house  of  Jehovah?  The  ellipsis  is  easily  supplied  by  reading,  what  sign 
dost  thou  give,  or  what  sign  is  there,  or  more  simply  still,  what  is  the  sign! 
The  construction  of  no  as  an  exclamation  of  surprise  (ivhat  a  miracle !)  is 
neither  natural  in  itself,  nor  justified  by  usage,  in  a  case  where  the  usual 
interrogative  sense  is  perfectly  appropriate.  The  question  is  more  fully 
given  in  2  Kings  20 :  8  as  follows.  And  Hezekiah  said  to  Isaiah,  What 
sign  that  Jehovah  is  about  to  heal  me,  and  that  I  shall  go  up,  on  the  third 
day,  to  the  house  of  Jehovah  1    The  reference  is  to  the  promise  as  recorded 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX.  645 

in  v.  5  of  the  same  chapter.  Return  and  say  to  Hezekiah,  the  chief  of  my 
people,  Thus  sailh  Jehovah,  the  God  of  David  thy  father,  I  have  heard  thy 
prayer,  I  have  seen  thy  tears ;  behold,  I  am  about  to  heal  thee ;  on  the  third 
day  thou  shalt  go  up  to  the  house  of  Jehovah.  The  last  two  verses  of  this 
chapter  in  Isaiah  are  evidently  out  of  their  chronological  order,  and  the 
question  has  been  raised,  whether  this  transposition  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
original  writer,  and  if  so  how  it  is  to  be  accounted  for.  The  hypotheses 
which  have  been  proposed  may  be  reduced  to  three.  The  first  is,  that  the 
transposition  is  an  error  of  transcription,  arising  from  the  mere  inadvertence 
of  some  ancient  copyist.  Besides  the  difficulty  common  to  all  such  suppo- 
sitions, that  errors  of  the  kind  supposed,  although  they  might  take  place, 
could  scarcely  become  universal ;  it  is  here  precluded  by  the  fact  that  these 
two  verses  cannot  be  inserted  in  the  text  above  without  breaking  its  conti- 
nuity, and  cannot  therefore  have  dropped  out  of  it,  unless  we  take  for 
granted  also,  that  the  text  was  altered  after  the  omission,  which  is  only  add- 
ing arbitrarily  another  to  the  gratuitous  assumptions  made  before.  Some 
avoid  this  difficulty  by  supposing  that  the  verses  do  not  properly  belong  to 
this  text,  but  were  added  by  a  later  hand,  in  order  to  complete  the  narrative 
as  given  in  the  second  book  of  Kings.  Apart  from  the  natural  presumption 
against  all  such  imaginary  facts,  except  where  the  assuming  of  them  cannot 
be  avoided,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  a  copyist  or  critic,  who  would 
use  such  freedom  with  the  text,  would  have  used  more,  and  inserted 
this  statement  in  its  proper  place.  It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  these 
fanciful  hypotheses  with  the  obvious  and  simple  supposition  that  the  passage 
before  us  is  the  first  draught  or  original  form  of  Isaiah's  narrative,  in  which 
the  facts  recorded  in  these  two  last  verses  were  added  by  a  kind  of  after- 
thought, and  that  in  re-writing  the  account,  as  a  part  of  the  national  history, 
he  naturally  placed  them  in  their  chronological  order.  It  would  probably 
be  easy  to  produce  many  parallel  cases  from  the  correspondence  of  volumi- 
nous letter-writers,  or  from  other  cases  of  repeated  composition  on  the  same 
subject  by  the  same  writer.  However  this  may  be,  it  seems  clear  that  the 
explanation  now  proposed  is  simpler  in  itself,  and  requires  less  to  be  ima- 
gined or  supposed,  than  any  other,  and  is  therefore,  even  on  the  strictest 
principles  of  criticism,  entitled  to  the  preference. 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 


This   chapter   contains    an    account  of  the   Babylonian    embassy  to 
Hezekiah,  and  of  his  indiscreet  and  ostentatious  conduct,  which  became  the 


646  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX. 


occasion  of  a  threatening  message  by  the  hands  of  Isaiah,  predicting  the 
Babylonian  conquest  and  captivity,  but  with  a  tacit  promise  of  exemption 
to  the  king  himself,  and  to  the  country  while  he  lived,  which  he  received 
with  humble  acquiescence  and  thankful  acknowledgment. 

The  chapter  is  evidently  a  direct  continuation  of  the  narrative  before  it, 
nor  is  there  any  real  ground,  internal  or  external,  for  suspecting  its  authen- 
ticity, antiquity,  or  genuineness. 

V.  1.  In  that  time,  Merodach  Baladan,  son  of  Bala  dan,  Icing  of  Baby- 
lon, sent  letters  and  a  gift  to  Hezckiah,  and  he  heard  that  he  was  sick  and 
was  recovered.  The  first  phrase  is  used  with  great  latitude  of  meaning,  and 
may  either  describe  one  event  as  contemporaneous  with  another,  or  as  follow- 
ing it,  at  once  or  more  remotely.  Knobel  supposes  it  to  mean  here  simply  in 
the  days  of  Hezekiah.  Most  other  writers  take  it  for  granted  that  this  mes- 
sage of  congratulation  must  have  been  sent  soon  after  the  recovery  of  Heze- 
kiah.  These  understand  W6*\  as  equivalent  in  meaning  to  snttj  ^3  2  Kings 
20 :  12,  and  explain  all  the  verbs  of  the  last  clause  as  pluperfects  (for  he  had 
heard  etc.),  Knobel,  on  the  contrary,  gives  1  its  usual  sense,  and  understands 
the  clause  to  mean,  that  the  king  of  Babylon  heard  of  Hezekiah's  sickness 
from  his  ambassadors  on  their  return.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  paral- 
lel statement,  assumes  a  needless  prolepsis  or  anticipation,  and  encumbers  the 
narrative  with  a  fact  entirely  superfluous.  What  the  ambassadors  reported 
to  the  king  on  their  return,  is  of  no  importance  to  the  history.  Merodach 
occurs  in  Jer.  50 :  2,  as  the  name  of  a  Babylonian  idol.  Grotius  supposes 
that  a  man  of  that  name  had  been  deified ;  others,  that  it  was  common  to 
name  men  after  gods.  Hitzig  identifies  the  name  with  the  Persian  diminu- 
tive Jt>yo  little  man  (as  a  term  of  endearment),  Gesenius  with  the  Mars  of 
classical  mythology.  In  2  Kings  20 :  11,  it  is  written  Berodach,  which 
Hiller  explains  as  a  contraction  of  Bar  Merodach,  the  son  of  Merodach, 
while  Knobel  regards  it  as  a  mere  mistake,  and  Gesenius  as  a  customary 
variation,  b  and  m  being  often  interchanged.  Two  manuscripts  read  Bero- 
dach in  the  case  before  us,  and  a  few  have  the  transposed  form  Medorach. 
Baladan,  according  to  Von  Bohlen,  is  a  Persian  word  meaning  praised; 
according  to  Gesenius,  an  Aramean  compound  meaning  Bel  (is  his)  lord. 
Hitzig  explains  bal  as  a  connective  syllable,  like  pol  in  Nabopolassar,  pal 
in  Sardanapalus,  etc.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  agree  with  Vitringa  in 
identifying  this  king  with  the  Mardokempad  of  Berosus,  as  preserved  in  the 
Armenian  version  of  Eusebius  ;  but  Knobel  understands  him  as  naming 
Merodach  Baladan  distinctly.  The  same  authority  describes  these  Baby- 
lonian princes,  not  as  sovereigns,  but  as  viceroys  or  tributaries  subject  to 
Assyria.  In  that  case,  it  is  not  improbable  that  Merodach  Baladan  was 
meditating  a  revolt,  and  sent  this  embassy  to  gain  Hezekiah's  co-operation. 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX.  647 

The  congratulation  on  his  recovery  may  have  been  a  secondary  object,  or 
perhaps  a  mere  pretext.  In  2  Chron.  32:  31,  a  further  design  is  men- 
tioned, namely,  to  inquire  of  the  tvonder  that  was  done  in  the  land,  whether 
this  be  understood  to  mean  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army,  or  the 
miraculous  recession  of  the  shadow.  There  is  no  incompatibility  between 
.these  different  designs.  Perhaps  an  embassy  is  seldom  sent  to  such  a  dis- 
tance with  a  single  undivided  errand. 

V.  2.  And  HezeJciah  was  glad  of  them,  and  showed  them  his  home  of 
rarities,  the  silver,  and  the  gold,  and  the  spices,  and  the  good  oil  (or  oint- 
ment), and  all  his  house  of  arms,  and  all  that  was  found  in  his  treasures ; 
there  was  not  a  thing  which  HezeJciah  did  not  show  them,  in  his  house  and 
in  all  his  dominion.     The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  20:  13)  has  SEtiJ,,,i 
firrb*,  which  Knobel  understands  to  mean  that  he  heard  of  them,  but  which 
seems  to  be  more  correctly  rendered  in  the  English  Bible,  and  he  hearkened 
unto  them.    There  is  no  need  of  regarding  either  as  an  error  of  transcription, 
or  as  the  correction  of  a  later  writer.     Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
such  a  variation  on  the  part  of  the  original  writer,  describing  Hezekiah's 
feelings  in  the  one  case  and  his  conduct  in  the  other.     He  hearkened  to 
them  courteously  because  he  was  glad  of  their  arrival.     Henderson  says,  he 
was  delighted  with  them ;  but  the  context  seems  to  show  that  it  was  not  so 
much  the  company  or  manners  of  the  men  that  he  was   pleased  with, 
as  the  honour  done  him  by  the  king  of  Babylon  in  sending  them.     The 
practice  of  exhibiting  the  curiosities  and  riches  of  a  palace  to  distinguished 
visitors,  Vitringa  illustrates  by  the  parallel  case  of  Croesus  and  Solon,  as 
recorded  by  Herodotus,     ros  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  identical  with 
the  rvtsaa  of  Gen.  37 :  43,  and  the  whole  phrase  interpreted  accordingly,  as 
meaning  properly  a  house  of  spices,  and  then  by  a  natural  extension  of  its  im- 
port, a  depository  of  rare  and  precious  things  in  general.  The  former  meaning 
is  retained  by  Aquila  (tbv  oiaov  rwv  aQG)[tdtG)v)  and  the  Vulgate  (cellam  aro- 
matum).    The  other  is  given  in  the  Targum  and  Peshito,  and  by  most  mod- 
ern writers.    The  Septuagint  retains  the  Hebrew  word  (vexa&u).    Abulwalid 
derives  it  from  P23  to  bite,  and  applies  it  to  provisions ;  Lorsbach  from  a  Per- 
sian verb  meaning  to  deposit ;  Hitzig  from  a  Hebrew  root  of  similar  import. 
o^s  ma  is  not  a  house  of  jewels  or  vessels,  but  of  arms,  i.  e.  an  arsenal,  most 
probably  the  same  that  is  mentioned  in  ch.  22 :  8.     Luther  has  all  his  arse- 
nals, but  this  would  be  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  plural.     Lowth  more 
correctly  has  whole  arsenal,  which  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  common  ver- 
sion, all  the  house  of  his  armour.     The  goodly  or  precious  oil  is  supposed 
by  Barnes  to  have  been  that  used  in  the  unction  of  kings  and  priests,  or 
perhaps  applied  to  more  ordinary  purposes  in  the  royal  household.     Knobel 
explains  ir&iswQ  as  meaning  in  his  power  or  possession.    So  the  LXX. 


648  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX. 

(Qovaia).     It  is  more  commonly  explained,   however,   as  a  local    noun 
denoting  realm  or  dominions.     Hitzig  gives  rvnx*a  the  specific  sense  of 
store-rooms  or  treasure-chambers,  which  is  unnecessary.    Even  on  the  usual 
hypothesis,  the  a  need  not  be  translated  among,  but  may  have  its  usual  and 
proper  .sense  of  in. 

V.  3.  Then  came  Isaiah  the  prophet  to  the  Icing  HezeJciah,  and  said  to 
him,  What  said  these  men,  and  whence  came  they  unto  thee  1  And  Heze- 
Jciah  said,  From  a  far  country  came  they  unto  me,  from  Babylon.  The 
Prophet  was  not  sent  for  by  the  king,  as  in  ch.  37  :  2 ;  but  he  was  no  doubt 
sent  by  God,  and  came  in  his  official  character.  The  older  writers  seem  to 
regard  as  the  occasion  of  his  visit  the  vainglory  which  the  king  had  dis- 
played in  his  entertainment  of  the  strangers.  The  moderns  lay  the  chief 
stress  on  the  political  negotiations  which  had  passed  between  them,  and 
which  could  not  be  regarded  by  the  Prophet  but  with  strong  disapprobation. 
The  statement  in  Chronicles  is  that  God  left  him,  to  try  him,  to  know  all 
in  his  heart  (2  Chr.  32:  31).  This  may  include  the  sins  of  vain  ostenta- 
tion and  of  distrust  in  God,  showing  itself  in  a  longing  after  foreign  alliances. 
There  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  Hendewerk's  assumption,  that  a  treaty  had 
actually  been  concluded.  Gesenius  observes  that  Hezekiah  answers  only 
the  second  of  the  Prophet's  questions,  as  if  he  shrunk  from  answering  the 
first.  But  this  mode  of  replying  to  the  last  interrogation,  when  there  is 
more  than  one,  is  natural  and  common  in  cases  where  there  can  be  no  mo- 
tive for  concealment.  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  suppose  with  Ciericus, 
that  a  part  of  Hezekiah's  answer  is  omitted  in  the  narrative.  In  the  last 
clause,  Calvin  understands  the  king  as  boasting  of  the  distance  from  which 
the  embassy  had  come,  as  implying  the  extent  of  his  own  fame  and  political 
importance.  Vitringa  supposes  the  distance  to  be  mentioned  as  an  excuse 
for  his  hospitable  attentions.  Knobel  thinks  it  was  intended  to  disarm  Isai- 
ah's suspicion  of  a  league,  as  if  he  had  said,  too  distant  to  admit  of  any  inti- 
mate communion  or  alliance.  All  these  interpretations  seem  to  strain  the 
words  beyond  their  natural  and  obvious  import,  according  to  which  a  far 
country  is  nothing  more  than  a  familiar  designation  of  Babylon  or  Babylonia. 

V.  4.  And  he  said,  What  have  they  seen  in  thy  house  1  And  HezeJciah 
said,  All  that  is  in  my  house  have  they  seen ;  there  is  not  a  thing  that  1 
have  not  showed  them  in  my  treasures.  Some  of  the  later  Germans  say  that 
Hezekiah,  finding  evasion  and  concealment  impossible,  now  frankly  tells 
the  truth.  But  the  frankness  of  the  answer  here  recorded  rather  shows,  that 
there  was  no  attempt  at  concealment  from  the  first.  It  was  not,  as  Calvin 
well  observes,  until  the  Prophet  questioned  him,  that  Hezekiah  became 
aware  of  the  error  which  he  had  committed.     Knobel  gratuitously  asserts 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX.  649 

that  the  Prophet  here  shifts  his  ground  from  finding  fault  with  what  had 
passed  in  words  to  blaming  what  had  passed  in  act,  between  the  king  and 
the  ambassadors. 

V.  5.  And  Isaiah  said  to  Hezekiah,  Hear  the  word  of  Jehovah  of 
Hosts.  This  form  of  expression  gives  to  what  follows  the  solemnity  and 
authority  of  a  divine  decree.  The  parallel  passage  (2  Kings  20:  16)  omits 
mans,  which  Vitringa  regards  as  emphatic  here,  implying  a  signal  exer- 
cise of  divine  providence  and  power. 

V.  6.  Behold,  days  (are)  coming,  when  all  that  (is)  in  thy  house,  and 
that  which  thy  fathers  have  hoarded  until  this  day,  shall  be  carried  to 
Babylon ;  there  shall  not  be  left  a  thing  (literally  a  word),  saith  Jehovah. 
Jarchi  directs  attention  to  the  exact  correspondence  of  the  punishment  with 
the  offence.  As  the  Babylonians  had  seen  all,  they  should  one  day  take 
all ;  as  nothing  had  been  withheld  from  them  now,  so  nothing  should  be 
withheld  from  them  hereafter.  The  German  interpreters  are  at  a  loss, 
whether  to  make  this  explicit  prophecy  a  proof  of  later  date,  or  to  explain 
it  as  a  sagacious  conjecture  founded  on  the  previous  fate  of  the  ten  tribes, 
and  on  the  actual  relations  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy  to  Judah  and 
Assyria.  The  scale  preponderates  in  favour  of  the  latter  supposition,  not- 
withstanding its  absurd  assumption  of  a  mere  political  conjecture  as  to  events 
which  did  not  happen  for  a  hundred  years.  To  those  who  are  under  no 
unhappy  necessity  of  explaining  away  the  clearest  proofs  of  inspiration  and 
prophetic  foresight,  this  passage  affords  a  striking  instance  of  the  gradual 
development  of  prophecy.  The  general  threatening  of  expatriation  had 
been  uttered  seven  hundred  years  before  by  Moses  (Lev.  26:  33.  Deut. 
28:  64-67.  30:  3).  Five  hundred  years  later,  Ahijah  had  declared 
that  Israel  should  be  rooted  up  and  scattered  beyond  the  river  (1  Kings  14  : 
15).  Within  a  hundred  years,  they  had  been  threatened  by  Amos  with 
captivity  beyond  Damascus  (Am.  5 :  27).  Isaiah  himself  had  obscurely 
intimated  a  future  connexion  between  the  fortunes  of  Israel  and  Babylon 
(ch.  14:  1.  21  :  10).  But  here,  for  the  first  time,  the  Babylonish  exile 
is  explicitly  foretold,  unless  the  similar  prediction  of  the  contemporary 
prophet  Micah  (4 :  10)  be  considered  earlier.  The  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
phecy began  in  the  deportation  of  Manasseh  (2  Chron.  33  :  11),  but  was 
described  as  something  still  prospective  by  Jeremiah  (20 :  5),  in  whose 
days,  and  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  it  was  at  length  fully  accomplished  (2 
Chron.  36  :  18).  To  the  objection,  that  a  national  calamity  of  this  descrip- 
tion bears  no  proportion  to  the  fault  of  Hezekiah,  there  is  no  need  of  any 
other  answer  than  the  one  already  given  by  Vitringa,  to  wit,  that  Hezekiah's 
fault  was  not  the  cause  but  the  occasion  of  the  punishment  which  fell  upon 


650  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX. 

the  people,  or  rather  of  its  being  so  explicitly  predicted  in  the  case  before 
us.  For,  as  Calvin  says,  the  punishment  of  Hezekiah's  individual  fault  was 
included  in  the  punishment  of  Israel  for  national  offences. 

V.  7.  And  of  thy  sons  that  shall  issue  from  thee,  which  thou  shalt  beget, 
shall  they  take  away,  and  they  shall  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the  king  of 
Babylon.  The  future  form  of  the  expression  in  the  first  clause  has  respect 
to  the  fact  that  Hezekiah  had  as  yet  no  children.  (See  above  on  ch.  38  : 
2.)  Hendewerk  regards  the  terms  used  as  inapplicable  to  any  but  immediate 
descendants,  in  which  case  the  prophecy  must  be  restricted  to  Manasseh  (2 
Chron.  33  :  11).  But  Hitzig  and  Knobel  justify  the  wider  application  of 
the  terms  by  the  analogy  of  ch.  51  :  2,  and  by  the  constant  use  of  father 
and  son  in  reference  to  remote  descendants  or  progenitors.  The  $fi  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse  is  universally  admitted  to  be  partitive.  They 
shall  take  may  either  be  an  indefinite  construction,  or  agree  with  the  Baby- 
lonians understood.  bWib  is  strictly  understood  by  the  Septuagint 
(anaSovtag)  and  the  Vulgate  (eunuchi),  but  explained  by  the  Targum  to  mean 
nobles  ("pa-on  absurdly  rendered  in  the  London  Polyglot,  nutriti),  i.  e. 
courtiers  or  household-officers,  an  extension  of  the  meaning  which  agrees 
well  with  the  usages  of  oriental  courts.  The  latter  explanation  is  approved 
by  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary  for  a  specified  reason.  In  his  earlier  Lexi- 
cons he  leaves  it  doubtful ;  but  in  the  Theasurus  he  contends  for  the  strict 
sense,  even  in  Gen.  37  :  36,  as  well  as  in  the  case  before  us,  with  respect 
to  which  he  answers  his  own  argument  upon  the  other  side,  by  a  counter- 
argument of  equal  strength.  Instead  of  inp^,  the  parallel  passage  (2  Kings 
20 :  17)  has  the  singular  rip*1,  which  is  equally  correct  and  regular,  in  a  case 
of  indefinite  construction.  The  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  is  recorded  in  2 
Kings  24:  12-16  and  Dan.  1  :  1-7,  and  that  so  clearly,  that  the  neologists 
are  driven  to  their  usual  supposition  of  an  interpolation,  or  of  such  an  altera- 
tion as  to  make  the  terms  of  the  prediction  more  determinate. 

V.  8.  And  Hezekiah  said  to  Isaiah,  Good  is  the  word  of  Jehovah 
which  thou  hast  spoken.  And  he  said,  For  there  shall  be  peace  and  truth 
in  my  days.  The  word  good  is  here  used,  neither  in  the  sense  of  gracious 
nor  in  that  of  just  exclusively,  but  in  that  of  right,  as  comprehending  both. 
While  the  king  acquiesces  in  the  threatening  prophecy  as  righteous  and 
deserved,  he  gratefully  acknowledges  the  mercy  with  which  it  is  tempered. 
That  he  looked  upon  the  woes  denounced  against  his  children  as  a  personal 
misfortune  of  his  own,  is  clear  from  his  regarding  the  postponement  of  the 
execution  as  a  mitigation  of  the  sentence  on  himself.  The  expression  of 
thankfulness  at  this  exemption  shows  how  true  the  narrative  is  to  nature  and 
experience.     Umbreit  has  the  good  sense  and  feeling  to  describe  it  as  a 


ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX.  651 

natural  and  childlike  acknowledgment.     The  purer  taste  and  loftier  morality 
of  other  German  writers  can  regard  it  only  as  naiv-egoistisch  (Gesenius),  or 
as  an  expression  of  true  oriental  egoismus  (Hitzig).     According  to  these 
philosophical  interpreters,  Hezekiah,  instead  of  being  thankful  for  the  mercy 
which  was  mingled  with  God's  judgments,  ought  to  have  rejected  the  pro- 
mise of  peace  and  truth  in  his  own  days,  unless  extended  to  his  children 
also.     This  sentimental  magnanimity  may  answer  well  enough  in  plays 
and  novels,  but  is  equally  at  variance  with  human  nature  and  the  word 
of  God.     It  was  not  more  clearly  Hezekiah's   duty  to  submit  without  a 
murmur  to  God's  threatening,  than   it  was  to  accept  with  gratitude  the 
exemption  promised  to  himself.      Quamvis  enim  haec  poena  aliud  seculum 
maneret,  tamen  praesentem  gratiam  amplecti  debuit ;  et  certe  nostro  potis- 
simum  seculo  servire  debemus,  ejusque  praecipue  ratio  habenda  est ;  futurum 
non  est  negligendum,  sed  quod  praes ens  est  atque  instat  magis  officium  nos- 
trum requirit.    (Calvin).     Nothing,  therefore,  as  the  same  great  writer  well 
says,  can  be  further  from  the  spirit  of  this  answer,  than  that  of  the  Greek 
sentence,  e^iov  ftavovrog  yala  ptx&rjno  nvql,  or  the  Latin,  mihi  mortuo  omnes 
mortui  sunt.     Calvin  is  also  of  opinion  that  the  words,  which  thou  hast  spo- 
ken, are  emphatic,  and  intended  to  recognise  Isaiah  as  an  authoritative  mes- 
senger from  God.     There  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  the  second  lo»*»1 
means,  he  said  in  his  heart  (Hitzig),  or  after  Isaiah  was  gone  (Knobel),  much 
less  that  it  simply  means  he  thought  (Hendewerk).     The  obvious  sense  of 
the  expression  is  that  these  words  were  added  to  explain  his  previous  acqui- 
escence in  the  divine  determination.     The  repetition  of  the  verb  he  said 
implies  a   pause  or  interval  however  short.     The  various  explanations  of 
the  particle  *0,  as  meaning  well,  yes,  provided,  only,  yet,  oh  that,  etc.  are 
mere  substitutions  of  what  the  interpreters  think  Hezekiah  ought  to  have 
said  for  what  he  did  say,  which  is  simply  this,  (I  call  it  good)  because  there 
is  to  be  etc.     This  exact  sense  of  the  words  is  retained  in  the  Targum  and 
the  English  Version.     The  optative  meaning  is  expressed  in  the  Septuagint 
(yeveo&co  dy)  and  the  Vulgate  (Jiat  tantum).    The  Peshito  simplifies  the  syn- 
tax by  omitting  and  he  said,  and  connecting  the  two  clauses  directly :  good  is 
the  word  of  the  Lord  which  thou  hast  spoken,  that  there  shall  be  peace  and 
truth  in  my  days.     But  this,  besides  its   arbitrary  mutilation  of  the  text, 
impairs  the  force  of  Hezekiah's  language  by  restricting  it  wholly   to  the 
promise.     Peace  may  be  here  taken  in  the  wide  sense  of  prosperity,  but 
with  special  reference  to  its  proper  import,  as  denoting  exemption  from  war. 
Truth  is  understood  by  Henderson  and  Barnes  in  its  modern  religious  sense 
of  true  religion.     Cocceius  even  restricts  it  to  the  preaching  of  the  truth. 
Hendewerk  gives  it  the  sense  of  goodness,  as  the  Septuagint  does  that  of 


652  ISAIAH,  CHAP.  XXXIX. 


righteousness.  Hitzig  supposes  it  to  mean  the  mutual  fidelity  of  men  in 
their  relations  to  each  other.  But  the  best  interpretation  seems  to  be  the 
one  approved  by  Calvin,  Vitringa,  and  Gesenius,  who  take  the  word  in  its 
primary  etymological  sense  of  permanence,  stability,  in  which  the  ideas  of 
fidelity  and  truth  may  be  included,  as  effects  necessarily  imply  their  cause. 


From  the  foregoing  exposition  of  chapters  xxxvi-xxxix,  it  may  safely 
be  inferred,  as  a  legitimate  if  not  an  unavoidable  deduction,  that  they  form 
a  continuous  unbroken  narrative  by  one  and  the  same  writer ;  that  this 
writer  may  as  well  have  been  Isaiah  as  any  other  person,  if  we  regard  inter- 
nal evidence,  and  can  have  been  no  other,  if  we  regard  the  immemorial  tra- 
dition of  the  Hebrew  Canon  ;  and  that  these  four  chapters,  far  from  having 
been  inserted  here  at  random  or  through  ignorance,  are  in  their  proper  place, 
as  a  connecting  link  between  the  Earlier  and  Later  Prophecies,  the  threat- 
ening in  ch.  39:  6  b^ing  really  the  theme  or  text  of  the  long  prophetic  dis- 
course, with  which  th^  remainder  of  the  book  is  occupied. 


THE  END 


V 


f  O  WLE'S  SERMONS,— Chiefly  designed  to  show  the  practical  working  of  Faith.    1  vol.     2  00 
GILL'S  COMPLETE  BODY  OF  DOCTRINAL  AND  PRACTICAL  DIVINITY. 

New  edition.     2  large  vols.  8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  5  50 

GLEIG'S  SERMONS  for  Advent,  Christmas,  and  the  Epiphany.     1  vol.  .  1  75 

GOODWIN. — The  Treatises  of  that  famous  Divine,  Thomas  Goodwin,  D.  D.     First  se- 
ries.    1  large  vol.  8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  3  50 

GRESLEY. — Ecclesiastes  Anglicanus:  being  a  Treatise  on  Preaching.     Third  edition, 

revised.     1  vol.  12mo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  2  25 

ANGLO  CATHOLICISM.— A  short  Treatise  on  the  Theory  of  the  English  Church. 

1  vol.  12mo.       .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  l  38 

HALL. — The  Works  of  Robert  Hall,  A.  M.,  with  a  Memoir  of  his  Life,  by  Dr.  Gregory. 

6  vols.  l2mo.     Neat  edition.      .  .  .  .  .  .  .  7  00 

HAMMOND. — The  Definitions  of  Faith,  and  Canons  of  Discipline  of  the  Six  Oecumen- 
ical Councils,  with  the  remaining  Canons  of  the  Code  of  the  Universal  Church. 
Translated,  with  notes.     To  which  are  added,  the  Apostolical  Canons.     1  vol.  8vo.       2  25 

HARRINGTON. — The  Object,  Importance,  and  Antiquity  of  the  Rite  of  Consecration 

of  Churches.     1  vol.  8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  2  25 

HAWEIS'S  SKETCHES  OF  THE  REFORMATION  AND  ELIZABETHAN  AGE, 

taken  from  the  Contemporary  Pulpit.     1  vol.      .  .  .  .  .  2  00 

HENGSTENBERG'S  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PSALMS.— Translated  by  Fair- 
bairn.     Vol.  l,in8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  2  50 

HOLLAND'S  RECORDS,  Biographical  and  Critical,  of  the  Psalmists  of  Great  Britain. 

2  vols.  8vo.        .........  5  50 

HOOKER— The  Works  of  Mr.  Richard  Hooker.     Arranged  by  the  Rev.  John  Keble. 

Third  edition.    3  vols.  8vo.     Oxford,  1845,      .  .  .  .  .10  00 

Another  edition,  with  his  Life  and  Death,  by  Isaac  Walton,  and  an  Index.     2  large 

vols.8vo.     Oxford,  1845,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  4  50 

HOPKINS.— The  whole  Works  of  the  Right  Reverend  Ezekiel  Hopkins,  D.  D.,  with  a 

Memoir  of  the  Author.     1  large  volume,  .  .  .  .  .  4  00 

HOWARD'S  MARY  SPENCER,— A  tale  for  the  Times.     1  vol.  .  .  l  25 

INTERLINEARY  HEBREW  AND  ENGLISH  PSALTER.— A  new  Hebrew  and 

English  Lexicon.     In  1  vol.  12mo.         .  .  .  .  .  .  3  25 

Or  separate.     The  Psalter  $1  50.     The  Lexicon  $2  00.  x 
JAMIESON. — The  Manners  and  Trials  of  the  Primitive  Christians.     Third  edition,  1  50 

JEBB'S  PASTORAL  INSTRUCTIONS  on  the  Character  and  Principles  of  the  Church 

of  England.     1  vol.  l2mo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  2  00 

JELF'S  BAMPTON  LECTURE.— An  Inquiry  into  the  Means  of  Grace,  &c.     1  vol. 

8vo 3  25 

JONES. — The  Book  of  the  Heart,  or  Plain  Meditations  on  various  Religious  Subjects, 

Doctrinal,  Spiritual  and  Practical,  in  the  form  of  self-application.     1  vol.  .  1  25 

JONES.— The  Theological  Works  of  the  Rev.  William  Jones,  A.  M.,  of  Nayland.     6 

vols.  8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  14  00 

JOSIAH.— By  the  Author  of  Gideon.     1  vol.  .  .  .  .  .  1  38 

JOWETT'S  HELPS    TO  PASTORAL  DEVOTION:  illustrating  the  Scriptural  In- 
tercourse of  a  Minister  with  his  Flock.     1  vol.     ....  1  75 

KEN. — The  Practice  of  Divine  Love.     l8mo.  •  ..  .  .  .  0  31 

KNOX.— Select  Practical  Writings  of  John  Knox      1vol.  .  .  .  100 

LATHBURY'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  NONJURORS:  their  Controversies  and  Wri- 
tings, &c.  &c.     1  large  vol.  8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  4  50 

LATIMER. — Sermons  by  Hugh  Latimer,  sometime  Bishop  of  Worcester,  Martyr,  1555. 

Edited  by  Rev.  G.  L.  Corrie,  B.  D.     1  large  vol.  8vo.     .  .  .  •  4  00 

LEIGHTON'S  WHOLE  WORKS.— New  edition.     2  large  vols.  8vo.    London,  1845.     5  00 
LESLIE.— The  Theological  Works  of  the  Rev.  Charles  Leslie.     7  vols.  8vo.  .  18  00 

LETTERS  OF  THE  MARTYRS  :  collected  and  published  in  1564.    With  a  Preface, 

by  Miles  Coverdale.    1vol.         .  .  .  .  .  .  2  00 

LITURGIES,  (the  two,)  A.  D.  1549,  and  A.  D.  1552 :  with  other  Documents  set  forth  by 

authority  in  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.     1  large  vol.  8vo.     .  .  .  4  00 

LIVES  OF  THE  ENGLISH  SAINTS  :— 

No.  2.     St.  Richard,  the  Saxon,       .  .  .  .  .  .  l  00 

"    3»    St.  Augustine,  of  Canterbury,  .  »  .  .  .  1  00 

««    4.    St.  Bartholomew,  &c.  .  .  .  .  .  .  l  00 

-    5.     St.  Wulstan,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1  00 

"    6.     Sts.  Paulinus,  Edwin,  Ethelburga,  &c.  .  .  .  .  1  25 

■     7.     St.  Gilbert,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  1  00 

"    8.    St.  Wilfrid,  Bishop  of  York,  .  .  .  .  .  1  25 

LINGARD'S  HISTORY  and  Antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church.     New  and  en- 
larged edition.     2  vols.  .  .  .  .  .  .  7  00 

LYON'S  HISTORY  of  St.  Andrews,  Episcopal,  Monastic,  Academic  and  Civil.    2  vols. 

8vo.       ..........  8  00 


4  00 
3  00 

1  50 
1  75 

3  75 

2  50 

3  00 
1  88 
1  75 

21  00 
1  88 
1  25 

75 

2  50 

3  00 

MADGE'S  LECTURES  on  certain  High-Church  Principles,  commonly  designated  by  the 

term  Puseyism.     1  vol.  8vo.       .  .  .  .  .  .  .  2  75 

MAITLAND'S  SERIES  OF  ESSAYS  on  the  State  of  Religion  and  Literature  in  the 
Dark  Ages.     1  vol  8vo.  ....... 

MANNING'S  SERMONS,  preached  before  the  University  of  Oxford.     1  vol.  8vo. 

MARRIOTT'S  ANALECTA  CHRISTIANA,  in  usum  tironumr  edidit  et  annotation- 
bus  illustravit.     Part  1.  .  .  .  .  .  .  # 

MARRIOTT'S  SERMONS,  Preached  before  the  University,  and  other  places.    1  vol. 

MARSDEN'S  DISCOURSES  for  the  Festivals  of  the  Church  of  England.  With  notes. 
1  vol.  8vo.  ......... 

MARTINEAU'S  ENDEAVOURS  AFTER  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.— A  volume 
of  Discourses.     1  vol.    ........ 

MAURICE. — Christmas  Day, and  other  Sermons.     1  vol.  8v«. 

MILL'S  FIVE  SERMONS  on  the  Temptation  of  Christ  in  the  Wilderness.     1  vol.  8vo. 

MONTGOMERY.— Christ  our  all  in  all.     1  vol.  l2mo.        . 

MORNING  (The)  EXERCISES  AT  CR1PPLEGATE,  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  and  in 
Southwark.     Fifth  edition,  revised  and  improved.     6  large  vols.  8vo. 

NEALE. — Hierologus  ;  or,  The  Church  Tourists.     I  vol.  l2mo. 

A  Mirror  of  Faith.     Lays  and  Legends  of  the  Church  of  England.     1  vol. 

The  Triumphs  of  the  Cross.     Tales   and  Sketches  of  Christian  Heroism.     1  vol. 

12mo.      .  .  .  .  . 

NELSQN  — A  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Church  of  England.  New 
edition.     1  vol.  8vo.       ........ 

NORTH'S  SERMONS  ON  THE  LITURGY.     1  vol 

OVERALL. — The  Convocation  Book  of  MDCVL,  commonly  called  Bishop  Overall's 
Convocation  Book,  concerning  the  Government  of  God's  Catholic  Church,  and  the 
Kingdom  of  the  Whole  World.     1  vol.  8vo.       .  .  .  .  .  3  00 

PALEY. — The  Church  Restorers  ;  a  Tale,  treating  of  Ancient  and  Modern  Architecture, 
and  Church  Decorations.     1  vol.  ...... 

PLAIN  SERMONS,  by  Contributors  to  the  Tracts  for  the  Times.     Vol.  6. 

POOLE'S  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND,  from  the  Invasion  by  the  Romans,  to  the  Ac- 
cession of  Queen  Victoria.     Vol.  1.        . 

PRECES    SELECTEE  ;  or  a  Selection  of  Prayers  for  the  use  of  Harrow  School.     1  vol. 

PROCEEDINGS  of  the  General  Anti-Slavery  Convention,  held  in  London  in  1843.  1 
vol.  8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  . 

PULPIT  (The.)— SERMONS,  by  Eminent  Living  Divines.  45  vols.  A  complete  set, 
very  scarce,         ......... 

The  same.     Vols.  42, 3, 4,  5.     Each     ...... 

RANKE'S  HISTORY  of  the  Reformation  in  Germany.     Second  Edition,  translated  by 

Sarah  Austin.     2  large  vols.      ....... 

RIDGWAY. — "The  Faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints,"  considered  in  its  distinctive 

principles  and  sure  results.     1  vol.  12mo.  ..... 

SABBATH  (The)  QUESTION  ILLUSTRATED  ;  by  a  Roadside  Inquirer.  1  vol.  12mo. 
SANDFORD'S  PAROCHIALIA  ;  or,  Church,  School,  and  Parish.     1  vol.  8vo.     . 
SCOTTISH  PULPIT  ;  a  series  of  Sermons  by  the  most  eminent  Divines  of  the  Scottish 

Church,  forming  a  complete  Body  of  Divinity.     5  vols.  8vo. 
SELF-SACRIFICE  ;  or,  The  Chancellor's  Chaplain.     1  vol.  l2mo. 
SERLE. — The  Christian  Remembrancer.     1  neat  volume,  12  mo.    . 

SEWELL'S  CHRISTIAN  POLITICS.     1  thick  vol 

SEWELL. — Popular  Evidences  of  Christianity.     1  thick  vol. 

SHARP.— The  Theological  Works  of  the  Most  Reverend  John  Sharp,  D.  D.    5  vols.  8vo. 

SHORT.— What  is  Christianity  1     1  vol.     ...... 

SOUTH. — Sermons  preached  on  several  occasions  by  Robert  South,  D.  D.    New  Edition, 

with  the  chief  heads  of  the  Sermons,  a  Biographical  Memoir,  and  General  Index. 

Two  large  volumes,  royal  8vo.   ....... 

SPALDING'S  PHILOSOPHY  OF  CHRISTIAN  MORALS.     1  vol.  8vo. 
STOPFORD'S  PAGANO-PAPISMUS;    or,  an  exact  parallel  between  Rome-Pagan 

and  Rome-Christian  in  their  Doctrines  and  Ceremonies.     1  vol.  .  .  2  25 

SYLVANUS  ;  or,  the  Primitive  Christian.     A  Tale  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian 

Era.     1  vol.  .  .  .  .  .  •.  1  25 

TOMLINS  MISSIONARY  JOURNALS  AND  LETTERS,  written  during  eleven 

years'  residence  and  travels  among  the  Chinese,  Siamese,  Javanese,  Ate.     1  vol.  2  50 

TAYLER. — Tractarianism  not  of  God.     Sermons.     1  vol.  12mo.  .  .  1  75 

THACKERAY'S  RESEARCHES  into  the  Ecclesiastical  and  Political  State  of  Ancient 

Britain.     2  vols.  8vo.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  7  00 

TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES.     By  Members  of  the  University  of  Oxford.     Complete 

in  5  vols.  8vo.     .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  13  00 

UHDEN  — The  Anglican  Church  in  the  19th  century  :  indicating  her  relative  position  to 

dissent  in  every  form  ;  and  presenting  a  clear  and  unprejudiced  view  of  Puseyism 

and  Orthodoxy.     1  vol.  8vo.  .  ....  3  75 


1  50 

2  00 

1  50 
63 

2  50 

60  00 
2  50 

8  50 

1  50 
1  25 
4  75 

7  00 
2  00 

1  00 

2  00 
2  00 

14  00 
1  00 

6  00 
3  75 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  dt  i  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


— 


2    JAN  194ft 


***** 

REC'D  LX 

JRH29,b4-9fl» 

interhjbram 


LOAN 

SEP 


?4  1973 


LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


/D  31292 


i  M  M IR '  k M  1 

)j  ::j                 '   •  ijllij 

M      :    Hi 

\ ;  i '  i  "ii  •  iiHi* 

''l/.ttl'F^i  r  !'i  I'i 

,;  ;'"i||h  jjlt  i»Ih 

HUH! 
i|j!li|i|||H 

i      Hi  111  uU 


